Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544661I wont deny they used some spicey language but that door was swinging both ways in this case. You come out swinging  with mother may I and you are bound to get those kinds of reactions ----it would be like me jumping on the forge and calling everyone swine. I am going to be insulted if I do that. Like I said we can all dial down the rage once in a while.

As I explained, the term was in play when I arrived.

People was wondering what it could mean- I told them.

Quote from: gleichman;544663No it doesn't.

I have what I consider to be excellent GMs. But they're human, they can't consistency and accurately determine all the important factors free form- they must be done within the framework of the rules.

You realize the rules are written by humans too, right?

it very much is a good GM vs. Bad GM issue. It won't get better for you until you realize that. Perhaps you just suck at judging the quality of GMs.

Quote from: gleichman;544659It should be pointed that that 3E was by far the most successful and popular, and remains so today in Pathfinder. That seems to have been the right balance to attract as many gamers as possible.

3x (including Pathfinder) being my favorite edition, I'd have no problem with going back to something closer to that.

That said, I think part of the reason a lot of us want non-grid play has less to do with playstyle in particular and more to do with the rising numbers of people looking to play online rather than in person.

Quote from: gleichman;544666As I explained, the term was in play when I arrived.

People was wondering what it could mean- I told them.

If you are referring to me, I was asking TCO specifically, but once you chimed in, I figured you wanted to debate it. However, I notice you have not directly responded to me even once, so I'm assuming you have changed your ind, so I will let it go until you decide you'd like to jump back on stage rather than heckle from the balcony.

Quote from: beejazz;544668That said, I think part of the reason a lot of us want non-grid play has less to do with playstyle in particular and more to do with the rising numbers of people looking to play online rather than in person.

John Morrow pointed out to me that online play may be a serious driver for people. It seems he may have been right.

I can't play online and have no opinions about it. Thus ignore anything that I post with respect to such online play.

Quote from: beejazz;544668That said, I think part of the reason a lot of us want non-grid play has less to do with playstyle in particular and more to do with the rising numbers of people looking to play online rather than in person.

This is definitely it for me. I enjoy mats and miniatures.

Edit: Oh, and I loathe that non-argument of "mother may I".

Quote from: gleichman;544641You are not an offender on this point- Drohem, Sigmund and Benoist are.

Because we reacted vehemently to your bullshit treating people who are not playing with miniatures and tax forms as dumb, deluded people who have been brained damaged by their gaming to not realize D&D is all about numbers, you mean? Well, yes, yes Sir. I am an offender in that case.

Quote from: gleichman;544664The only difference I'm seeing here is scale (30' hex instead of 5' say). Is that the case?

More or less, though proximity to landmarks can matter at a smaller scale (so there's a rough-around-the-edges accounting for where you are in the hex). Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier.

Point is that a simple change in scale makes a space easier to visualize, helping to reduce reliance on maps. At least IME.

Truth is my development of these rules is somewhat circumstancial. I learned to DM in games hosted at other peoples' houses back when I walked everywhere, so minis were out of the question. And the rules serve me well in online games as well.

Quote from: Sigmund;544667You realize the rules are written by humans too, right?

So was math and guessing.

Guess which is better at hitting their targets with artillery?

Right tool for the right job Sigmund.

Quote from: Mistwell;544658I think this goes back to the bad DM vs. good DM issue.

If you have a bad DM, you want every possibly issue covered by the rules, because there isn't mutual trust between the players and DM.

If you have a good DM and players who all trust each other, having every possible issue covered by the rules isn't important.

This is fucking stupid.

IF YOU HAVE A BAD DM, YOU DO NOT GAME WITH THE BAD DM. To do otherwise is to enable the bad DM.

This does not mean that ALL DMs are bad.

For fuck's sake, I learned this when I was 13. :rolleyes:

Quote from: gleichman;544676So was math and guessing.

Guess which is better at hitting their targets with artillery?

Right tool for the right job Sigmund.

Ah, there you are. So you're telling me that the writers of RPGs are automatically as precise, intelligent, learned and or naturally talented as the legions of folks and centuries of history that brought us math, and that all GMs do no better than guess each time they make a choice or ruling? Really?

Oh, and a couple more points. Artillery hits their targets, at least they did when I was in the Army, by people who use math to make an educated guess about where the artillery should aim. This frequently resulted in initial failure, that the person used to adjust their guess, and then have the artillery try again. They eventually homed in on their target. Sounds familiar somehow...

Further point. Sometimes the artillery gunners would premeasure and aim for specific points they thought the enemy might cross through. Still sounding familiar to me.....

Silly me, if you want to see my ultimate opinion on this issue, just see my sig, CRK's quote of a quote specifically.

Quote from: jeff37923;544678This is fucking stupid.

IF YOU HAVE A BAD DM, YOU DO NOT GAME WITH THE BAD DM. To do otherwise is to enable the bad DM.

This does not mean that ALL DMs are bad.

For fuck's sake, I learned this when I was 13. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately not everyone did, hence this discussion.

Quote from: beejazz;544675More or less, though proximity to landmarks can matter at a smaller scale (so there's a rough-around-the-edges accounting for where you are in the hex). Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier.

Point is that a simple change in scale makes a space easier to visualize, helping to reduce reliance on maps. At least IME.

Yes. If I may...

In concept it's an increase in abstraction. As abstraction increases that comes a point when certain levels of reality disappear.

If the scale is high enough, a dungeon crawl for example becomes almost non-dimensional, and the need for a map disappears. If the action moved outside and the ranges increases to hundred of yards- the need for a map would reappear.

Works out quite well.

But at their core D&D (and GURPS, HEROES, and many other games) don't work at that level of abstraction while many Lite games do.

Quote from: gleichman;544676So was math and guessing.

Guess which is better at hitting their targets with artillery?

To follow your argument, if i made a guess at which was better at hitting their targets with artillary - maths or guessing, there's a good chance i'd be wrong.

Quote from: jeff37923;544678This is fucking stupid.

IF YOU HAVE A BAD DM, YOU DO NOT GAME WITH THE BAD DM. To do otherwise is to enable the bad DM.

This does not mean that ALL DMs are bad.

For fuck's sake, I learned this when I was 13. :rolleyes:

I wonder why this sounds like rocket science to some people. It's really not. :idunno: