Quote from: Kaelik;573813So just to be clear, you believe that you are responsible for the actions of Stormbringer and it is perfectly fair for me to say "rpgsiters do X" where X is anything Storm does ever, and you have to accept that all rpgsiters do that because every person on a forum is responsible for the arguments made by one person?

It's nice having a fan club.  Even when they are whiny twats.

Quote from: gleichman;573515My take away from this event is a confirmation of how solid the group think at therpgsite site has become in recent years.

(snip)

What was the claim? Come to therpgsite and speak your mind without fear? Odd isn't it that the Forge once invited people to come there and discuss theory in any way they wished. The final outcome in both cases ended up being identical. It's just the way online self-selected groups end up.

There were 3xers here before the denners showed up (hello). Also check the threads reworking the fighter, the design and development forum, and hell even the thunderdome threads. That is a whole category of thread I hadn't personally seen before, and it looks pretty fun from what I've caught up with so far (EDIT: even if it was apparently disappointing for the participants... sad to see, but haven't caught up). There are harsh words as always, but I'm not seeing the animosity. In fact, I think the dialogue has been pretty productive. Even the worst of it was at least a hell of a lot more entertaining than the edition wars back in '08ish.

So yeah... people are in fact speaking their minds without fear, and having fun with the discussion. Otherwise they would have left by now.

Quote from: VectorSigma;573771I strongly encourage folks - old and new - to get on about the business of actually discussing the playing of roleplaying games for a bit and leave all this wankery aside.

This is step 2. It never really happened for the 4e fans sadly, but I'd be happy with the Denners sticking around for AP discussion. Especially if involves some of their homebrewed system work. It's one thing to put shit like that together, and have it look good on paper, and another thing altogether to see it at the table.

School's back for me, so my contributions to the Design and Development forums may slow, but there are several new posters and Denners I'd be happy to have in my playtest when it starts.

Quote from: Planet Algol;573776I don't think that such elements (a pool that can randomly change random ability scores) would be tolerated in contemporary D&D culture.

'A magic pool that can change my ability scores randomly?!?! That could Ruin A Build!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe the culture change between old-guard and new-guard is from embracing chaos to embracing predictability?

While the build-changers would be bothersome in a new school game, it's not for the reasons you think.

In new school games, one of the draws is that character generation is its own game. So these pools would invalidate choice on random chance, and where just being there lessens the impact of what were supposed to be more meaningful decisions. They'd be like ME endings.

Random character generation ala older D&D is fundamentally different. It's a unique challenge or asset, and "playing it where it lies" as it were is a core part of the appeal. The pools would just be an extension of that logic.

I'd use each style of game for different groups and different reasons. My charop days were a lot of fun, but I'm considering making something a lot lighter my go-to game for one shots and new players after a long-ass chargen session almost killed my most recent 3.5 one-shot.

I'll add that I'm also interested in parity in a modern game, but for different reasons than the typical Denner (based on what they've said so far). For me, if you're going to build characters at all, choices that are so bad no one would make them if they knew, or so good no one would not take them if they knew, are both bad design of the character building minigame. Same goes for contextual versions (feats every fighter or no fighter should take, for example). They're non-choices really.

Quote from: Spike;574082Having at last drawn a couple of Denners into Thunderdomes a curious observation struck me: A key portion of the Den philosophy of gaming appears to be the Sniper.

And argue with the DM over every statement?

Quote from: Rum Cove;574750And argue with the DM over every statement?

Naw, that just occurs because, like any echo-chamber created fanatic, their sense of self-worth is apparently bound up in proving their worldview.  I wish we were actually sitting around the table, I can envision Kaelik's hands shaking as he rolled the dice.  It's funny, and somewhat sad.






Nah, who am I kidding, it's just funny. :rotfl:

Quote from: Rum Cove;574750And argue with the DM over every statement?

I tend to kep arguing with the GM to a minimum whenever I play. I ask questions and WILL complain whenever they overtly change the rules without prior knowledge that they are intending to do so. I will and have been known to complain about this even when the rules change would benefit me. I don't like my character having his hands held throughout the game as much as I hate my character being forced one way or the other to stay on the rails. The rules decisions that jeff made would have been of value to know prior to taking my actions but I have not shaken my fist or foamed at the mouth over the decisions he made. People thought that I did over the ride check despite me just questioning it and rolling for it in the same mail I sent him. He admitted to missing it but I'm sure most people read riht past that part without giving it a second thought.

It must be genetic.  Similar to a person's opinion on whether a country should have a publicly funded health care system.

Quote from: Rum Cove;574789It must be genetic.  Similar to a person's opinion on whether a country should have a publicly funded health care system.

That made me laugh out loud.

Quote from: Spike;573521Why do you even post here, Gleichman?  You don't seem to like us at all, a bunch of people here don't like you... I don't get the appeal?

It is like some sort of abusive domestic relationship where you just can't stay away?  Do you crave the fucked up dynamic? The cycle, the drama of plates smashing into walls and screaming at all hours of the night? Is that why you come back?

That can't be Gleichman. He "left this site forever" YEARS ago.  Then to make it absolutely Clear that he was being serious, he came back and Left Forever several more times so no one would miss his outrage. So obviously, what you're talking to now must just be a hallucination.

RPGPundit

So anyways, having completely willingly ignored these developments until now, I need someone to explain the gist of things to me: did these alleged "denners" come here because of some thread on that forum? Is the accusation that they planned to come here and make trouble (in which case its a problem)? Or did they just come here at the same time because trollman was here for a while (in which case its not a problem overall, and we should probably be looking at individuals rather than lumping them all into a group)?

Second, having had zero interest in the previous threads in question on this drama-train-to-nowhere, what exactly is the bone of contention? Are the alleged denners claiming that fighters are gimped compared to mages (and in which edition), and some rpgsite regulars are defending them? Or is it the other way around?
Or is the actual argument something else entirely; and if so what?

Having never visited that forum, what's the gist of their deal? I was under the impression trollman wasn't a D&D guy at all?  Are the supposed "denners" fan of a certain edition of D&D, or dislike all editions, or what?

RPGPundit

'Denners' is being used to refer to anyone who joined in June, July, or August that doesn't seem to agree with generally established opinions on these boards.  By and large, they are fans of 3.5 and not big fans of earlier editions with limited experience (and limited can mean little experience or they haven't played in a while so what experiences they have no longer mean anything).  

The 'Denners' are pretty sure that in 3.x, the Fighter (a straight-classed no PrC Fighter) is really lame compared to every other class, particularly casters.  Most of the discussion has focused around 'nuh-uh cause THIS', followed by 'uh-huh cause THIS'.  It's been fun.  In any case, rpgsite regulars have been defending the Fighter's relative power-level in 3.5, perhaps, in part, because they seem to believe that the 'denners' have come to ensure 'weaboo' powers get added to the 'Fighter' in all future editions of the game.  

FrankTrollman has his own game, but he's pretty into 3.x (or at least, he was).  He's put out a lot of 'fixes' for the 3.5 game that are popular on the Den and in some other corners of the web - usually referred to as 'The Tome'; so a game using his 'fixes' is often called a 'Tome Game'.  Never used any of it myself.  

I think that about covers it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;575076So anyways, having completely willingly ignored these developments until now, I need someone to explain the gist of things to me: did these alleged "denners" come here because of some thread on that forum? Is the accusation that they planned to come here and make trouble (in which case its a problem)? Or did they just come here at the same time because trollman was here for a while (in which case its not a problem overall, and we should probably be looking at individuals rather than lumping them all into a group)?

No site disruption. People are just riled up over a disagreement. They came because there was something to discuss with people they actually disagreed with on a premise that's more or less accepted on their own board (the fighter vs wizard thing, and parity as a design goal in general). I think the "invasion" predates any direct mention on the den from what lurking I've done there. I could be wrong, but it doesn't look much like a concentrated effort to accomplish anything in particular.

As for what their deal is, they are (not uncommon on the internet) fans of 3x who want to fix it for this or that reason.

I don't think it is a problem. People can come here and post opinions if they want. But I think most of us here feel it is a little suspicious that something like five to six posters joined in the last two months or so, basically make the gaming den talking points and are largely participating on the same handful of threads threads. Some of these guys seem pretty cool, some seem like they are just stirring things up. My opinion is things should be taken case by case but to me it is common sense that something's up...though it really isn't a huge deal.

The only reason it was brought up is because one of the new posters expressed shock at the hostility directed at him (and wanted to know why the more even tempered posters here weren't rushing to his/her defense) and some of us pointed out it wasn't terribly surprising giving recent circumstances (which someone has termed the August Surprise). But I don't think anyone here has any desire to see them banned or anything like that. If anything it has added a bit of spice to discussions.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575089In any case, rpgsite regulars have been defending the Fighter's relative power-level in 3.5, perhaps, in part, because they seem to believe that the 'denners' have come to ensure 'weaboo' powers get added to the 'Fighter' in all future editions of the game.

To be fair, a significant number of posters have pointed out that pre-3e editions of the game didn't suffer from 3e's caster supremacy problems (at least not of the same severity) because 3e removed several checks and balances on caster power (by increasing spell slots, making it harder to disrupt spells, etc.) and because TSR-era editions encouraged players to look beyond their character sheets and use the game-world in their favor (e.g. when the keep is attacked by a 16HD red dragon, your 10th-level fighter doesn't engage it in single combat; but instead rallies his followers, uses siege weaponry, etc.).

These points were, as far as I could be arsed to read the thread, largely ignored by the Denners.

But it is true that there was an inordinate amount of bile and vitriol on both sides. The Denners tried to point out that it's only natural to expect people to make optimal choices when faced with anything less than totally random character creation (e.g. even if you're rolling 3d6-in-order, if you roll STR 16 and INT 7, it's only natural to choose Fighter rather than Magic-User; and if a dagger does 1d4 damage and a sword does 1d8, it's only natural to expect most Fighters to pick the sword instead of the dagger).

My diagnosis is terminal incompatibility in playstyles. One side gauges player skill by mastery of the ruleset and the ability to build efficient characters; the other as the ability to interact with the game world in your favor. One side wants mathematically consistent and comprehensive rules to level the rules-mastery playing field; the other sees rules merely as a tool to govern interaction with the game world, and expects verisimilitude and consistency only as it relates to such interactions, paying little or no heed to notions of game balance. Also a good measure of argüing on bad faith on both sides of the debate.

Quote from: The Butcher;575163My diagnosis is terminal incompatibility in playstyles, and a good measure of argüing on bad faith on both sides of the debate.

I concur about the bile on both sides.

But bad faith is mostly on the anti-denner side of the question.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575089'Denners' is being used to refer to anyone who joined in June, July, or August.

Technically I joined prior to the "invasion" date. Denner is just a term coined by people in the Fighter v Wiz thread for people who agreed in some fashion with Frank or other people from the Den but that do not have a long post history here.