Quote from: Thanatos02Goddamn it, Psuedo, stop being such a monumental prick. What the fuck is your problem that you can't make your point without using such rhetorical bullshit?

+rep!

...kinda...

-O

Quote from: Thanatos02Goddamn it, Psuedo, stop being such a monumental prick. What the fuck is your problem that you can't make your point without using such rhetorical bullshit?

Because I'm pissed off from being told that helping someone improve their build meant that I wasn't interested in "playing", just in D&D as an intellectual exercise (nevermind that the person's build was hypothetical to start with).

I'm also pissed off that a pile of assholes has jumped in and interpreted asking for a basic level of interest in the mechanics and competency at using them as "buying all the books", "worrying an extreme amount", being "over-competitive" and similar crap. I'm certainly swearing more than others if that's what bothering you, but other than calling one person "careless and imprudent", I'm generally using _less_ pejorative language than Ian, Redfox, obryn, etc. To point to a specific example, I've got a broader definition of what's encompassed as part of "playing" a game than any of them.  

QuoteI used D&D as an example of a game that enforces a degree of at least minimum character competancy while still possessing, at the same time, an amazing allowance for optimization and suboptimization. You're only response seems to be a pissy 'go large or go home' attitude, which is great, because if you showed up at my game with it, I know which one you'd be doing.

You're using the fallacy of the excluded middle here. Since I have to repeat it - again - my actual position is that people should not play games with mechanics they aren't interested in or don't like. If they are interested in the mechanics, they should strive to get better at them, rather than just dumping everything onto other facets of the game.

QuoteLet's be fucking clear, ok? I've spent a decent enough time with 3.5 D&D rules so that I know which end of the Two-Handed Weapon is sharp, and my players arn't retards either. But I have players that hit both extremes of wanting to put effort into rules mastery, and I'd be a giant dick if I showed up and fucking belittled either section for wanting to show up and play.

You don't have to belittle them. I said this earlier in the thread too. You should help such people - just as I am in the Race/Class Build thread (and, it should be noted, for all that I'm "loony" and "over-competitive" and "a monumental prick" no one else is lifting a finger). You're confusing my specific action of belittling Ian with a general policy of doing so. I'm belittling Ian because he pissed me off by being an ingrate. He asked for help, I posted a build, he ranted at me about "feat bloat" and unplayable builds and how much of a jerk I was for telling him he should look outside the core books.

Now, I also advocate not coddling people. Is that what you have a problem with? I think you should help them to develop a good build, and learn the basic rules and share a few tips, but that in play, you shouldn't prevent them from making mistakes or shield them from the consequences of poor mechanical play. That's not "belittling" them.

QuoteWhy does sitting down with your friends have to be such a contest? There's no prize. The only incentive that you seem to have, Psuedo, is that it makes you feel like the big prick at the table. Wanna be the best? I don't give a shit.

Yes, you evidently don't. You don't seem to've read a single thing I written, either.

QuoteSome of it, no matter your game, comes down to good GMing so that my Psuedophedrine-level players arn't a lot more potent then my, I dunno, my not as mastery-level players. It's not that they don't get something for their knowledge, because they do, but nobodies being held back.

That's just a non-sequitur. If you're GMing things so that players who should be more potent, due to superior mechanical knowledge, aren't proportionally more potent than players who lack that knowledge, you _are_ holding them back. You might think that's justified, but you haven't presented an argument that it is so far (no one has, actually).

QuoteD&D a-fucking-side, for the time being, I think it's good game design to have a fairly high minimum ability in a class based game. Old school D&D was a little too strict for my tastes, because while every Fighter was as good as any other (sans rolls, sans equipment), there wasn't a lot of room for customization. I think a lot of the value of customization is lost when much of a players options are detrimental, purposefully or accidentally.

I actually agree on this part. I'd like to strip out many of D&D's dud feats and skills and replace them with choices that would balance out power levels across classes and feat choices more evenly. I think this would improve play by allowing more possible choices, which would diversify the kinds of challenges PCs could face, and the kinds of effectiveness and competency they could demonstrate.

Quote from: One Horse Townand telling other people how to enjoy themselves is fine, yes?

I'm not telling other people how to enjoy themselves. I'm pointing out that they shouldn't be playing games they don't enjoy large chunks of. The large chunks I'm talking about simply happen to be the mechanics. Imagine playing a game in a setting that you hated, just because you happened to like the mechanics. That would be strange, right? So why stick with mechanics you're unenthused about?

Once we've accepted that, it merely becomes a question of how we establish whether someone dislikes the mechanics or not. My answer is that we can tell that a person doesn't like the mechanics because they don't bother to get any better at using them. A person who likes chess learns to play chess better. A person who likes poker learns to play poker better. They take interests in these hobbies and pursue competency at them. If that's the case, and I think it is, then someone who doesn't bother to learn to play D&D better - by learning how the rules work - probably doesn't like D&D all that much, and would be better off playing another game. I even suggested one - FATE, which lacks D&D's complicated mechanical system.

That's one of the points I've been making all along, and it's why I resent this "Pseudo's telling everyone how they must play!" crap.

Quote from: RedFox:tears:

Oh yeah, you're a complete and utter loony.  At least you're entertaining.

It was a trite example of an IC behaviour. Which is pretty clear from context, if you'd read the post for once.

Discussions of character optimization often seem very abstracted from actually playing a campaign.  If you're starting a new game with a 1st level Wizard, and you know the GM isn't going to fudge or pull their punches* -- then you're not an idiot to select "less than optimal" feats like Toughness or Rapid Shot.  You're not screwing up, you're selecting feats that help you immediately rather than trying to create the ultimate build that won't pay off until level 10 (etc).  Depending on the nature of the campaign certain feats like Negotiator, might be more relevant than they would be otherwise.  The campaign and GM's style should have a lot of influence on the feats you select.

* Edit: to be clear -- this means that your 1st level Wizard has a good chance of dying.  You need all the help you can get.

Simply planning for low levels isn't outside of optimisation though. I'm currently playing in a game where the DM prefers PCs to be relatively low level (after six months of playing nearly every week, we're just now level 7) and knowing that, I was able to build a character who would do well at low levels to mid levels (the game is looking like it's going to end around level 10-12). I don't have a preplanned build for him, but that doesn't mean I've made poor choices for him either. He has a use for every feat he has at his current level, his spells are chosen to suit the kinds of opponents I expect him to face, and the way in which I play him in combat is designed to ameliorate his low hit points while maximising his spellcasting capability.

There's no principle of optimisation that a character has to suck until they hit an arbitrarily determined endpoint. Ideally, all the build choices a character takes are strong ones that constantly improve his capabilities, even if only indirectly (taking a poor feat to get into a strong PrC).

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIf that's the case, and I think it is, then someone who doesn't bother to learn to play D&D better - by learning how the rules work - probably doesn't like D&D all that much, and would be better off playing another game. I even suggested one - FATE, which lacks D&D's complicated mechanical system.

That's one of the points I've been making all along, and it's why I resent this "Pseudo's telling everyone how they must play!" crap.

If you can't see the contradiction in these two sentences - right next to one another, no less - then I don't think you'll ever see the direction some of us are coming from.

-O

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm not telling other people how to enjoy themselves. I'm pointing out that they shouldn't be playing games they don't enjoy large chunks of. The large chunks I'm talking about simply happen to be the mechanics. Imagine playing a game in a setting that you hated, just because you happened to like the mechanics. That would be strange, right? So why stick with mechanics you're unenthused about?

Because to some people it's just not a big deal.  They're getting other stuff out of the game than you are.

I realize this is hard (maybe impossible) for you to understand, but it's true.

That's why when a guy says he'd rather throw axes than kukris, even when kukris are so much better, you should take that at face value and not tell him to stop bothering to play D&D because he's doing it wrong.

Quote from: RedFoxBecause to some people it's just not a big deal.  They're getting other stuff out of the game than you are.

I realize this is hard (maybe impossible) for you to understand, but it's true.

It's not hard for me to understand. I just think that if you want a specific thing out of a game, you should find a game that provides that, rather than kludging around in one that doesn't. If you want a game with simple character creation, D&D is not that game. If you want a game where your character's effectiveness is determined by considerations of "coolness", D&D is not that game. You would be better off with FATE in the former case and Exalted in the latter.

QuoteThat's why when a guy says he'd rather throw axes than kukris, even when kukris are so much better, you should take that at face value and not tell him to stop bothering to play D&D because he's doing it wrong.

That suggestion actually had nothing to do with the dispute Ian and I had. Go back and read it. You'll find that it had two aspects. One was Ian's objection to the existence of PrCs, and the use of material from outside core sources, using terms like "feat bloat". The other was my claim that his character was being badly built by taking feats - even core feats - unnecessarily and at levels where they would serve no purpose for the character. The dispute doesn't have anything to do with his character "concept" of a "fast halfing who throws axes" but rather how that idea should be realised.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's not hard for me to understand. I just think that if you want a specific thing out of a game, you should find a game that provides that, rather than kludging around in one that doesn't. If you want a game with simple character creation, D&D is not that game. If you want a game where your character's effectiveness is determined by considerations of "coolness", D&D is not that game. You would be better off with FATE in the former case and Exalted in the latter.

With that in mind, what are your thoughts on house rules?

-O

Quote from: obrynWith that in mind, what are your thoughts on house rules?

-O

I use house rules to supplement the rules, or make minor changes to improve play, especially on issues where the rules are silent. When I start using house rules more than the set in the book(s), I don't consider myself to be playing that game any more.

This generally means I stop buying supplements for it, and when people ask me what I'm playing, I specify exactly what components I've taken from what, rather than calling it by the game's name.

This actually happened, with Exalted 2e, where I realised that I would rather use an expanded version of nWoD and a port of the charm set from both editions to play it than the rules in the book. I wasn't playing Exalted, I was playing a game in Exalted's setting using a modified version of its charm set and mechanics from the nWoD line.