QuoteI suggest you change it immediately to something more appropriate.

"Goat Penis Death Vortex"?

Quote from: Imp;367734"Goat Penis Death Vortex"?

That sounds like it should be in a double feature with "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!"  

Quote from: Seanchai;367699You keep saying you understand the subjective nature of your argument, but then keep pointing to out objective reasons why your dislike is justified. In this case, it's someone else's fault you don't like 4e...

Seanchai

You're an idiot.

Quote from: Thanlis;367710Aw, you do sometimes. I feel so left out now!

But in all seriousness -- the reason I don't find this forum a very interesting place to discuss D&D is because the shit-giving is highly unidirectional. If you're criticizing 4e, you can be as infantile and insufferable as you want. There's a huge double standard, and the inevitable result is that reasonable conversation is driven out.

Have some of us at least not been having reasonable discussion here?

Quote from: Thanlis;367723This, for example, is Benoist giving Stormbringer a pass. What he could have said, in his self-assumed role as village elder, is this:

"Hey, Stormbringer, that's not what Thanlis said. He said there were infantile and insufferable people criticizing 4e; he didn't say that there weren't infantile and insufferable people defending 4e."

But that's not how Benoist rolls.

And what you could have said to begin with is that there are infantile and insufferable people on both sides of the discussion, but you chose to focus on those who criticize.

Want some help off that horse?  It looks awful high to just clamber down unassisted.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;367616does anyone else actually think this is my argument?

Not initially, but always at the end.  Before the queenie storm-out we get to watch the gradual unravelling of strawmen, false equivalences, red herrings and appeals to popularity in what I've come to think of as the Abyssal Maw Cycle.

It invariably goes like this:

Poster X: I don't like This Particular Game because it's based on the assumption that 2+2 = 7.  I know other people quite like that in a game, but it for me it's a deal breaker.

Abyssal Maw: That's false.  2+2 does equal 7.  People just like to say otherwise because they have an irrational hatred of This Particular Game.

X: I'm not saying everyone has to like factual equations, but you can't seriously argue that people don't like the Game because they fail to realise that 2+2 = 7.

AM: But it does.  It really is that simple.  There's a reason 2+2 =/= 4 any more - it sucked.  That's why it now equals 7.  There are some sad and bitter losers who have an emotional attachment to the old equation, but it's not the fault of This Particular Game that they can't move on.

Poster Y (probably Windjammer): That's bullshit.  Here is every permutation of that equation, two dozen links to mathematical papers discussing it, and several YouTube videos of people counting up different objects in groups of 2.  There is absolutely no basis to your claim that 2+2 = 7.

AM: That's irrelevant.  The point is that 3 x 4 = 15.

Posters A, B and C: ROFL!  Did you seriously think you could move the goalposts like that without anyone noticing?  Your argument was wrong.  Admit it.

AM: *sigh*.  I'm not going to engage with this bullshit.  Hate all you want.  It won't change the fact that 3 x 4 = 15.

X: Where's your original claim that 2+2 = 7?

AM: I don't care.  This Particular Game is more popular than The Game You Like, so any equations it employs must be correct, otherwise it wouldn't be popular.  Duh.

X: So, you based your entire argument on a claim which has been falsified, but because the falsehood is popular in spite of being incorrect, it can't be false?

AM: Don't you losers have anything better to do?

Y: Incidentally, here's the evidence that 3 x 4 = 12.

AM: You really are desperate, aren't you?  Here's a quote I mined from Albert Einstein.  I've taken it out of context and snipped whole sentences from it so that it supports the conclusion that "multiplication" is redundant and useless.  No, I won't link to the original Einstein quote, in case you check what he actually said.

Y: I found the quote.  It says the opposite of what you shoehorned it into meaning.  Have you made a single factual statement in this thread you can back up with evidence?

AM: Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you.  This Particular Game is more popular than The Game You Like.  That's all that counts, and the fact that I've spent the last 50 posts lying, dodging, dissembling and generally acting like I'm in training for the 500-metre intellectual dishonesty event at the next Olympics doesn't mean that I actually agree with all the criticism of This Particular Game but can't stand to admit it.

Quote from: Hairfoot;367745Not initially, but always at the end.  Before the queenie storm-out we get to watch the gradual unravelling of strawmen, false equivalences, red herrings and appeals to popularity in what I've come to think of as the Abyssal Maw Cycle.

It invariably goes like this:

Poster X: I don't like This Particular Game because it's based on the assumption that 2+2 = 7.  I know other people quite like that in a game, but it for me it's a deal breaker.

Abyssal Maw: That's false.  2+2 does equal 7.  People just like to say otherwise because they have an irrational hatred of This Particular Game.

X: I'm not saying everyone has to like factual equations, but you can't seriously argue that people don't like the Game because they fail to realise that 2+2 = 7.

AM: But it does.  It really is that simple.  There's a reason 2+2 =/= 4 any more - it sucked.  That's why it now equals 7.  There are some sad and bitter losers who have an emotional attachment to the old equation, but it's not the fault of This Particular Game that they can't move on.

Poster Y (probably Windjammer): That's bullshit.  Here is every permutation of that equation, two dozen links to mathematical papers discussing it, and several YouTube videos of people counting up different objects in groups of 2.  There is absolutely no basis to your claim that 2+2 = 7.

AM: That's irrelevant.  The point is that 3 x 4 = 15.

Posters A, B and C: ROFL!  Did you seriously think you could move the goalposts like that without anyone noticing?  Your argument was wrong.  Admit it.

AM: *sigh*.  I'm not going to engage with this bullshit.  Hate all you want.  It won't change the fact that 3 x 4 = 15.

X: Where's your original claim that 2+2 = 7?

AM: I don't care.  This Particular Game is more popular than The Game You Like, so any equations it employs must be correct, otherwise it wouldn't be popular.  Duh.

X: So, you based your entire argument on a claim which has been falsified, but because the falsehood is popular in spite of being incorrect, it can't be false?

AM: Don't you losers have anything better to do?

Y: Incidentally, here's the evidence that 3 x 4 = 12.

AM: You really are desperate, aren't you?  Here's a quote I mined from Albert Einstein.  I've taken it out of context and snipped whole sentences from it so that it supports the conclusion that "multiplication" is redundant and useless.  No, I won't link to the original Einstein quote, in case you check what he actually said.

Y: I found the quote.  It says the opposite of what you shoehorned it into meaning.  Have you made a single factual statement in this thread you can back up with evidence?

AM: Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you.  This Particular Game is more popular than The Game You Like.  That's all that counts, and the fact that I've spent the last 50 posts lying, dodging, dissembling and generally acting like I'm in training for the 500-metre intellectual dishonesty event at the next Olympics doesn't mean that I actually agree with all the criticism of This Particular Game but can't stand to admit it.

Hairfoot wins the thread.

Quote from: Sigmund;367651will agree, however, that Windjammer's creative contributions do rock. If that's what you're referring to as "winning" the thread then I'll climb on-board with that

That, sir, is the meaning of my post.

Quote from: Hairfoot;367745Not initially, but always at the end.  Before the queenie storm-out we get to watch the gradual unravelling of strawmen, false equivalences, red herrings and appeals to popularity in what I've come to think of as the Abyssal Maw Cycle.

It invariably goes like this:

Poster X: I don't like This Particular Game because it's based on the assumption that 2+2 = 7.  I know other people quite like that in a game, but it for me it's a deal breaker.

Abyssal Maw: That's false.  2+2 does equal 7.  People just like to say otherwise because they have an irrational hatred of This Particular Game.

X: I'm not saying everyone has to like factual equations, but you can't seriously argue that people don't like the Game because they fail to realise that 2+2 = 7.

AM: But it does.  It really is that simple.  There's a reason 2+2 =/= 4 any more - it sucked.  That's why it now equals 7.  There are some sad and bitter losers who have an emotional attachment to the old equation, but it's not the fault of This Particular Game that they can't move on.

Poster Y (probably Windjammer): That's bullshit.  Here is every permutation of that equation, two dozen links to mathematical papers discussing it, and several YouTube videos of people counting up different objects in groups of 2.  There is absolutely no basis to your claim that 2+2 = 7.

AM: That's irrelevant.  The point is that 3 x 4 = 15.

Posters A, B and C: ROFL!  Did you seriously think you could move the goalposts like that without anyone noticing?  Your argument was wrong.  Admit it.

AM: *sigh*.  I'm not going to engage with this bullshit.  Hate all you want.  It won't change the fact that 3 x 4 = 15.

X: Where's your original claim that 2+2 = 7?

AM: I don't care.  This Particular Game is more popular than The Game You Like, so any equations it employs must be correct, otherwise it wouldn't be popular.  Duh.

X: So, you based your entire argument on a claim which has been falsified, but because the falsehood is popular in spite of being incorrect, it can't be false?

AM: Don't you losers have anything better to do?

Y: Incidentally, here's the evidence that 3 x 4 = 12.

AM: You really are desperate, aren't you?  Here's a quote I mined from Albert Einstein.  I've taken it out of context and snipped whole sentences from it so that it supports the conclusion that "multiplication" is redundant and useless.  No, I won't link to the original Einstein quote, in case you check what he actually said.

Y: I found the quote.  It says the opposite of what you shoehorned it into meaning.  Have you made a single factual statement in this thread you can back up with evidence?

AM: Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you.  This Particular Game is more popular than The Game You Like.  That's all that counts, and the fact that I've spent the last 50 posts lying, dodging, dissembling and generally acting like I'm in training for the 500-metre intellectual dishonesty event at the next Olympics doesn't mean that I actually agree with all the criticism of This Particular Game but can't stand to admit it.

ROFL. You made my day. And my signature (never had one on this site before).

Also, a change of avatar was in order. That's Murray Bozinsky of the 80s TV series "Riptide", which in Germany&Austria was called "Three guys, four fists" (Trio mit vier Fäusten). That's how I feel next to Seanchai and AM on this board. Like Riptide's Cody and Nick they are of course infinitely cooler than me, get all the girls, as well as the aforementioned fisticuffs. Ain't we a cute bunch?

This perplexes me, because while I do like Hawaiian shirts, I despise mustaches.

So.. I notice the haters pretty much want to talk about anything but gaming. Is that part of the topic over?

Quote from: StormBringer;367630I have read about medieval archers achieving similar feats.  On the other hand, that was firing over a curtain wall into an open field at a mass of charging enemies where accuracy wasn't really important.  An arrow shower, if you will.  Once their own ground forces were engaged, those guys took a coffee break, as you would likely cut down as many of your own as the enemy.

So, it's true, a trained archer can achieve high rates of fire, but they aren't shooting into a mixed crowd of enemies and allies.  If that archer landed 5 arrows where he wanted, the other 15 are now sticking out the backs of your allies and other enemies.  Lining up a decent shot to minimize the Fighter or Cleric catching a arrow in the back of the head can easily take a round, but more believably, a one minute round.  Launching one arrow every six seconds without the majority of them hitting your own party is pretty unlikely.


But again, this is assuming a pretty clear field and a straight line path.  Weaving in and around enemies and allies to get close to an opponent would be much, much slower.  Imagine a mall during the week of Christmas, peak shopping time.  Now imagine all of them have weapons and are trying to kill each other.  If you can manage 120 inches in a minute, you are doing pretty well.

These are the kinds of things that minis and battlemats tend to engender; this idea that while you are making your moves and attacks, the rest of the participants are immobile, like a game of freeze tag or something.  To get a better idea of missile combat, at least, the next time the battlemat is set up, assume that any square occupied by a figure is total cover both ways.  For even a moderate sized hallway, I think you will find missile fire all but impossible, unless the archer can find some high ground to fire down into the melee, and even then, it would be quite dodgy.

Well vis a vis archery you are confusing rate of fire with accuracy. I agree that a highly tactical game should have some sort of rule that says you get a -ve mofider for each arrow after the nth (where nth is determined by some level/skill based mechanic) however that is probably be a step to far for me. the fact is that in a 1 minute round there is no differntiation made for the archer shooting from atop the castle battlements into a crowd of incoming orcs to the archer trying to cherry pick shots. Generally, there are additional rule sfor shootign in melee in any case. Having observed with my own eyes an archer firing arrouns 30 meters into a target at a constant rate of 1 every ten second or so and landing them all on an area the size of a dinner plate I reckon 1 shot a minute is too slow for me its a break.

As for movement again you are saying the rate is due to factors like weariness etc but the answer surely is to have a base rate and modify it for characters that are being wary rather than impose that as a default. If I was facing a mall full of assailants I would probably be running in the other direction

As an aside one of the best fun things I have done with my daugther was to run through a busy maze. We were at Longleat or somewhere and rather than pick out way through we just ran choosing random directions and dodging folk with push chairs and the like whilst being chased by some friends. and we were moving pretty quick even though she is only 4. (highly reccommend this as it makes mazes far far more fun.)

But all this distracts form the fun of baiting AM et al so please continue.

Quote from: Sigmund;367741Have some of us at least not been having reasonable discussion here?

Yep. But the frequency of it declines. Gresham's Law and all.

Quote from: Imperator;367760That, sir, is the meaning of my post.

Ok, rock on.

Quote from: jibbajibba;367767Well vis a vis archery you are confusing rate of fire with accuracy. I agree that a highly tactical game should have some sort of rule that says you get a -ve mofider for each arrow after the nth (where nth is determined by some level/skill based mechanic) however that is probably be a step to far for me. the fact is that in a 1 minute round there is no differntiation made for the archer shooting from atop the castle battlements into a crowd of incoming orcs to the archer trying to cherry pick shots. Generally, there are additional rule sfor shootign in melee in any case. Having observed with my own eyes an archer firing arrouns 30 meters into a target at a constant rate of 1 every ten second or so and landing them all on an area the size of a dinner plate I reckon 1 shot a minute is too slow for me its a break.

As for movement again you are saying the rate is due to factors like weariness etc but the answer surely is to have a base rate and modify it for characters that are being wary rather than impose that as a default. If I was facing a mall full of assailants I would probably be running in the other direction

As an aside one of the best fun things I have done with my daugther was to run through a busy maze. We were at Longleat or somewhere and rather than pick out way through we just ran choosing random directions and dodging folk with push chairs and the like whilst being chased by some friends. and we were moving pretty quick even though she is only 4. (highly reccommend this as it makes mazes far far more fun.)

But all this distracts form the fun of baiting AM et al so please continue.

Lets all keep in mind that the rules in question were in the process of being adapted from miniature wargame rules, so some allowances along those lines were bound to have to be made. The games being released now have a much greater history of RPG rules design to draw from than early DnD did. We made it work.

Quote from: Thanlis;367770Yep. But the frequency of it declines. Gresham's Law and all.

Then perhaps a more selective approach to the lambasting is in order, these are new clothes and I don't want any mud on 'em.