Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

I think he is wrong. Sure get a new weapon or armor. Sorry but monsters that require me or another player to go "mother may I?" to the DM are not only full of crap if I could I would wish them out of existence. A enemy stealing my stuff or damaging it go right ahead that's smart tactic. I won't apologize for hating both monsters.

Not to mention the entire point of the thread is essentially asking posters which monsters they don't like. Why would anyone expect such a thread to be one filled with compliments toward monsters. It's like getting angry because people acted in a way that was to be expected.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1022440Those are the monsters that cross a line in my imagination between "gonzo but believable world" right on over to "Now you are just jerking off on the graph paper."

D&D, from day one, has been very meta-game in its implementation.

In the OD&D rules, monsters can see in the dark.  The rules EXPLICITLY state that if a monster is hired by a PC, the monster loses the ability to see in the dark.

It makes absolutely no fucking sense in terms of constructing a universe, but it adds a really interesting set of challenges to the game.  I like that.

Quote from: sureshot;1022447Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

Though I do think he has too much time to waste when he lashes out at a poster for responding to the original point of the thread. I was asked what monster I thought was the dumbest in D&D and I answered.

What pisses me off is the idea of "fuck you monsters."  It's an absurd notion.  It's right up there with all the posts complaining about "Gygax inventing things to make the game less fun."

This comes under the heading of "Are you listening to what's falling out of your face?"  Gary sitting around rubbing his hands together cackling "Nya ha ha, this will REALLY ruin everybody's fun!"

I mean, seriously?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1022445I will agree (more with Ras Algethi) on the point that he is putting forth the same old bluster ("we gamed up hill both ways... in the snow"is a pretty convenient shorthand) that generally implies that back in the good old glory days gamers gamed harder, stronger, better, more intelligently, and with less whining, etc. And that I just plain call BS. I've met several old old old school gamers--came to TTRPGs from wargaming, started with D&D with the LBBs, etc., etc., etc. who are without a doubt just as much whinny, thin-skinned, hissy-fit-throwing poor losers and everything else as the grognards routinely complain about 'the kids today' doing. There are good, intelligent, competent, mature gamers from every era, and who enjoy every game/gaming style.

You are absolutely, completely correct that there were plenty of whiny-ass pants-pissing little wankers in the old days, and I spent a lot of time culling them from my game.

The difference seems, at least to me, to more accommodation of people who want "easy mode" play.

And it's spreading.  After GaryCon either two or three years ago, somebody posted a long screed about how horrible a game Dawn Patrol was because once he got shot down, he was out of the game.

It's a wargame about WW1 aircraft.  You get shot down, you lose.  Losing happens, and that day it happened to him.  Don't play wargames if you're going to whine when you lose.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022398Oh, waa waa waa.  Your sword rusted.  Boo hoo.

So go find another, better one.

I fucking hate players who piss themselves and shit their panties about "fuck you monsters."  If you want the game to be on easy mode, go play My Little Pony.

Didn't you mention your localcrewlikes Pathfinder, Glorious General? I've got you covered:)!

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/125583/Ponyfinder--Campaign-Setting
...yes, that's exactly what you think it is;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022428"Victory" is not a single encounter.  Okay, you lost your sword and armor.  Now instead of you helping guard your mates, your mates have to cover you.  Your whole plan and march order is disrupted.

Yeah, that's cool.  The fun of a game is when your plan goes to gooey shit and you have to improvise it all, repairing a duotronic computer circuit with stone knives and bearskins.

If you play well, you'll make it back alive.  If you got ANY loot on your adventure, you can replace your weapon and armor, at least with ordinary stuff.  Was it magic?  Well, that sucks.  But if there was one magic sword out there, are there more?  What level are you?  Do you have enough money to hire a sage?

I'm totally serious.  The fun begins when things stop going as planned.  Just like I said someplace about wargaming -- "it's no fun playing against somebody who's no good."  A 57mm US antitank gun won't knock out a Tiger 1 from the front.  But I set up my defense so I got the tiger at about 300 yards right in the ass, and the engine obligingly blew up as the Germans scurried around frantically trying to figure out where the hell I was.

Succeeding against difficult odds is something I find a lot of fun.

That's been my attitude since before I knew what "a wargame" is (there were other games where I could practice it).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022439My doctor's keeping an eye on it.  Thanks for your concern.  Fortunately my PSA level is low and stable.

Shouldn't that be PTA, from "Piss-Take Attitude"?
...And now I have to make up an Exalted Charm for Piss-Take Attitude. Probably in the Socialize tree.

Quote from: sureshot;1022447Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

I think he is wrong. Sure get a new weapon or armor. Sorry but monsters that require me or another player to go "mother may I?" to the DM are not only full of crap if I could I would wish them out of existence.

Then don't go "Mother May I" on the Referee.

Also, I'm pretty sure Gronan doesn't think you're wrong to hate the monsters. From my vantage point, it seems he thinks the stated reasons for picking those particular monsters are the "full of crap" part.
Apologies, Gronan, if I've misenterpreted you.

Quote from: sureshot;1022447Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

I don't have that issue, it's the authoritative stance he takes with it however, that's what I complain about.

Quote from: sureshot;1022447I think he is wrong. Sure get a new weapon or armor. Sorry but monsters that require me or another player to go "mother may I?" to the DM are not only full of crap if I could I would wish them out of existence. A enemy stealing my stuff or damaging it go right ahead that's smart tactic. I won't apologize for hating both monsters.

That's the issue I have.

Not to mention the entire point of the thread is essentially asking posters which monsters they don't like. Why would anyone expect such a thread to be one filled with compliments toward monsters. It's like getting angry because people acted in a way that was to be expected.[/QUOTE]

And personally, I don't find the point of the Flumph.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1022445Gronan has stated that he is actively channeling the grumpier interpretations of Dennis the Menace's Mr. Wilson as a character guide for his online interactions. I don't really take offense or guffaw too much on it, since it is so clearly an affectation.

That's not a good thing.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1022445I don't think the rest of us have a problem with that particular sentence. If Gronan wants to be all 'bring 'em on!' over challenges, let him. Overcoming difficult challenges is its' own reward for many people. That's his prerogative.

Fair enough, it's the implied tone I take exception.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1022445I will agree (more with Ras Algethi) on the point that he is putting forth the same old bluster ("we gamed up hill both ways... in the snow"is a pretty convenient shorthand) that generally implies that back in the good old glory days gamers gamed harder, stronger, better, more intelligently, and with less whining, etc. And that I just plain call BS. I've met several old old old school gamers--came to TTRPGs from wargaming, started with D&D with the LBBs, etc., etc., etc. who are without a doubt just as much whinny, thin-skinned, hissy-fit-throwing poor losers and everything else as the grognards routinely complain about 'the kids today' doing. There are good, intelligent, competent, mature gamers from every era, and who enjoy every game/gaming style. There's no fast-track to excellence, including date-of-birth or preferred game. It's unfortunate that these pissing contest threads keep coming up pretending otherwise, but that seems to be the nature of online discussions.

I see it more with those who claim to be 'grognards', often citing their way is right and should be the only way, and anyone suggesting something else, like this thread, for example, they seem to take it as a personal attack on them, rather than on some of the design decisions we may not like.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022450You are absolutely, completely correct that there were plenty of whiny-ass pants-pissing little wankers in the old days, and I spent a lot of time culling them from my game.

The difference seems, at least to me, to more accommodation of people who want "easy mode" play.

And it's spreading.  After GaryCon either two or three years ago, somebody posted a long screed about how horrible a game Dawn Patrol was because once he got shot down, he was out of the game.

It's a wargame about WW1 aircraft.  You get shot down, you lose.  Losing happens, and that day it happened to him.  Don't play wargames if you're going to whine when you lose.

What the hell?  Are you for real?  What is wrong with people having different fun than you?  Seriously, you're coming off like some of the more entitled video gamers, I've seen.  Ones claiming that 'true gamers' don't play X game (insert name of video game you hate) and if they are having a good time, they're to be sneered at for doing it wrong.  Like the console vs. PC vs. phone/tablets 'war' that's going on currently.

Also maybe I'm missing something, and I'm being serious here.

Does Garycon have you pay per game slot?  The local Con up here does that, for people who want to be in the ground level and be guaranteed a spot at the table, but don't pay for a day/weekend pass.  Simply because they fill up fast.  So you've payed for a 4 hour block, and suddenly within 5 minutes you're out?  And you can't go to another game/table, because it's full up.  That's a ripoff, dood.  However, if these are demoes with drop in/drop out capacity, then fine, knock yourself out.  But at the same time, the guy went to have fun, to get a feel for the game, and suddenly he's out?  I can sympathize with him.

Not everyone has fun your way, and quite frankly, I like that about gaming, all gaming.  It can, and should in my opinion, accommodate us all.

So nobody ever loses?  Everybody gets a prize?

He got shot down.  He lost. It happens.  It's been happening at every GenCon since GenCon I.

People who can't stand to lose shouldn't play wargames.  This is not a value judgement, despite what you want to think.  Just like the Joker said "Decent people shouldn't live in Gotham City, they'd be happier somewhere else."

Losing happens and sometimes it happens to you.  If you don't like the game, don't play.  Don't play wargames if you aren't willing to face the possibility that you might get handed your ass in a bucket.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022545So nobody ever loses?  Everybody gets a prize?

He got shot down.  He lost. It happens.  It's been happening at every GenCon since GenCon I.

People who can't stand to lose shouldn't play wargames.  This is not a value judgement, despite what you want to think.  Just like the Joker said "Decent people shouldn't live in Gotham City, they'd be happier somewhere else."

Losing happens and sometimes it happens to you.  If you don't like the game, don't play.  Don't play wargames if you aren't willing to face the possibility that you might get handed your ass in a bucket.

I guess he wanted to play it like you play D&D and just make a new character and get right back in.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1022548I guess he wanted to play it like you play D&D and just make a new character and get right back in.

Well, that may be true.  IN that case, we're back once again to "make expectations clear beforehand," which I have ALWAYS said is vital.

One of the differences, of course, in a wargame is that the "other side" is players too; "we shot that son of a bitch down and here he comes again?  What the fuck?"

Quote from: sureshot;1022447Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

You're absolutely right, I basically put words in his mouth. I apologize. I should have followed my instinct and waited until I was in a better position to formulate my thoughts and in a technologically better position to respond*.

*I am currently in my father-in-law's snow-birder' double-wide trailer in "Trailer estates" in Florida, typing on a tiny smart phone connected to a hot-spot on a plan that charges by the gigabyte. That part is them being "all I do online is email" types and is completely understandable (if inconvenient for me now), but this whole experience has thrown me off my A game (such as it is).
[/size]

Quote from: Gronan of SimmeryaYou are absolutely, completely correct that there were plenty of whiny-ass pants-pissing little wankers in the old days, and I spent a lot of time culling them from my game.

The difference seems, at least to me, to more accommodation of people who want "easy mode" play.

And it's spreading. After GaryCon either two or three years ago, somebody posted a long screed about how horrible a game Dawn Patrol was because once he got shot down, he was out of the game.

It's a wargame about WW1 aircraft. You get shot down, you lose. Losing happens, and that day it happened to him. Don't play wargames if you're going to whine when you lose.

This could be a difference in personal experience (where we both consider our own to be representative of the greater gaming culture), rather than a difference in philosophy, but I don't really see it. I mean, yes there will always be new gamers and people who are just learning the ropes, and as a general rule they will be a little more complainy and upset when they lose. But I do not see a general trend in that direction for the greater gaming population.
Beyond that, I'm not sure I believe in 'easy mode.' Certainly not for TTRPGs. Pundey made the same statement in the 'roll 5d6' thread and I didn't see it in that situation either**. Easy mode in a TTRPG is a DM only putting you up against (or populating the world with, in sandbox play) situations you can handle. There aren't 'easy mode' games in and of themselves because if you are more powerful, you simply take on greater challenges.
**note: I kinda got primed by experiences on Dragonsfoot to assume that people people saying that they play with less generous stat-generation methods as flat out declaring their penises longer and nothing more, so this might just be my damage.[/size]

Regarding the Dawn Patrol (which, specifically, I know nothing about) example, first and foremost one person writing a post tells us nothing except that one person really disliked it. But more to the point--there seems to be a thought going around (which I at least understand, if not agree with) that a good game (particularly long games) should not leave any participants with nothing to do for huge stretches. It creates the situation where 6-8 friends get together to play a huge game, and 2-3 get eliminated 30-40% through the play-time. Then they start a different game, which isn't done when the first is started. And thus the whole group never ends up playing one game together again for the rest of the evening. I'm not sure that that is actually a particularly important goal (so what?, you're still all having fun in the same room, etc.), and there are tons of examples where that's not the case (you can be eliminated and/or someone get an insurmountable lead in Monopoly, the second half of Settlers of Catan is mostly a forgone conclusion, Magic: the Gathering drafts routinely run into the situation of two people finishing their match in 5 minutes and have to play 'not counting' games or just chew the fat while the rest of the draft finishes the round, etc.), but I don't feel that people ascribing to that belief in what-makes-a-game-'good' means that they are whiny or want 'easy mode,' etc. They just think that a game like Sorry, Talisman, or Robo-Rally (where if you are eliminated, you start over, with a hefty amont of ground you have to catch up) serve the gameplay experience better. I'm content to disagree with that perspective without assuming it is a desire for easy mode.
I of course can't know whether that's what they thought was wrong with Dawn Patrol, but it is a situation where I've seen people complain about games where it is not because they are in some way whiny brats.

Quote from: Christopher BradyThat's not a good thing.

Which, his behavior, or my not caring about it, since it is a schtick?

QuoteI see it more with those who claim to be 'grognards', often citing their way is right and should be the only way, and anyone suggesting something else, like this thread, for example, they seem to take it as a personal attack on them, rather than on some of the design decisions we may not like.

I will agree that there is some of that going on in this thread. And this board overall has bit of a leaning where when people remember themselves they put forth the position that it's just a game and there's no right way to play, etc., but when people relax they let slip that they think their interpretation is a little more equal than others (leaning towards OSR/TSR).
The thing is:

• There's no such thing as true objectivity/impartiality, and every single board is going to lean one way or the other.
• I absolutely, postively, and I can only assure you this is with genuine honesty, simply do not understand how you never seem to recognize that you do the exact same thing going in the other direction. Mind you, I want to recognize that I notice that you have made great strides. So much so that when you recently went back to the old CB, it was jarring. But it's there. You would not be pock marking your responses with comments in the vein of "I don't remember did 2e have..." or "I've barely played OD&D, so I wouldn't know" if you hadn't been taken to task so many times for making claims about the old school games, and old school gamers.

Now, having you around is a good check against the other direction, but 'we have partisans in both directions' is not the optimal solution.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022502I see it more with those who claim to be 'grognards', often citing their way is right and should be the only way, and anyone suggesting something else, like this thread, for example, they seem to take it as a personal attack on them, rather than on some of the design decisions we may not like.

So talking about "fuck you" monsters is not claiming that their way is right?  Fascinating.

Now, Pundy has said he doesn't like level draining undead because the mechanism models nothing in the literature.  (emphasis mine)  NOT because they are a "fuck you" monster or because "it ruins the fun."

If you cannot see the difference... well, frankly, much would be made clear.

And yeah, I'm a grumpy old curmudgeon.  Having to defend liking what I like for forty years does that to one.  And yeah, I've been told I'm "playing it wrong" -- not just differently, WRONG -- by subgroups of this hobby for that long.  For liking undead that drain levels, for liking save or die, for liking monsters that actually put characters in real danger of death or loss, for liking hit points, for liking fire and forget magic, for liking sandbox rather than preplotted campaigns, for liking XP for gold, and for a ton of other things I can't enumerate off the top of my head.

Aresholes to the lot of 'em, says I.

Unless I'm mistaken this thread began to go into the wrong direction.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022564So talking about "fuck you" monsters is not claiming that their way is right?  Fascinating.

If wrongfun was implied by my posts, I apologise for setting it up like that.  The sort of thing I was talking about are just  water-chestnuts I have to pick out of my D&D stir fry.  

Hireling monsters suddenly losing their ability to see in the dark sounds like it could lead into a hilarious scene though.  "Alright, my first mission with my new bosses!  Step one, scout out this pitch dark cave and...and... OH MY DEMON LORDS I'M BLIND!"

Fair enough.

Myself, I think that among the stupid monsters are the "standard monster but different."  I don't remember the details because I tend to purge them, but stuff like "looks like a zombie but isn't" in the Bone Hill module, that sort of stuff.  It was called something like a "zombire," which only made it worse.

I can actually accept something like a "gas spore" because it's an obvious piss-take easier than "looks like a kobold but is actually a troll" or whatever.  Jack Vance's wizards had the sense of humor and social development of a badly behaved 13 year old; they would create shit like the Mimic and Gas Spore just to fuck with people.  So to me, at least, that sort of fits with the source material.  And they'd laugh themselves sick over the Rust Monster.

In point of fact, the Dying Earth is full of real assholes.

And worse name goes to the Neo-Otyugh.  Close second is the Otyugh, which was an attempt to include the Ahoggya from Tekumel by filing the serial numbers off.
In fact, there are several Tekumel monsters renamed in the later D&D materials.

Quote from: joriandrake;1022581Unless I'm mistaken this thread began to go into the wrong direction.

If you REALLY want to wind me up, just insist that the ONLY POSSIBLE reason I play OD&D is for "nostalgia," and that I cannot actually possibly enjoy the game for its own sake.