Why 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?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;573493Fun in subjective.  

Most people (except possibly here) agree that relative balance between characters in the game is a good thing.  Gary Gygax even touted it as a design goal (not that I'm appealing to authority here - just making an observation).  

For myself, both as a DM and a player, the game is more fun if all players have around the same power-level.  

A non-optimized druid, or a wizard with a half-way decent spell list (easily gained by finding out what works and doesn't work during 12 levels of play) can make a Fighter feel pretty useless without meaning to.  

It's great if that doesn't happen in your games.  But if it does happen, you can't just ignore it.  It has a pretty big impact on the game.  Having a player with a character he doesn't enjoy sucks the fun out of the game (again - my subjective experience).  Replacing a long-valued member of the team with someone capable of contributing isn't an ideal solution, either - changing the characters changes the dynamics.  You can easily lose the fun you had through years of learning about how to work with your party members in combat.  

I like the game best if nobody ever feels useless - and not because they can't do anything - but because anybody else could do that, too, and they also have things the first player can't do.  

In any case, it's kind of funny that it's called a den invasion.  Or at least, that I'm considered part of it.  I was lurking on the Giant in the Playground forums, the WotC forums, the Den - none of my usual haunts, before I decided to start posting regularly here.

What I find most amusing is that I'm considered a troll not because of the posts that I make, but because 3 or 4 other people with similar thoughts have started posting around the same time - their actions make me a troll.

I am a roleplayer that hates builds.

But, I agree with deadDMwalking that relative balance is good.

But, here is how I define relative balance:

Its about each character having something they do that is both useful, and not overshadowed by another chracter.

Thats what relative balance means to me. Not "All classes equal"



Usefullness and identity, not equality

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?

As I've said before, there are a few people here whose posts I like. Most of them wisely avoided the 3rd edition threads, and the number has dropped over the years.

And my original reason for posting online from back in the usenet days still applies. I'm a terrible writer, and writing is the only way to improve that. Internet debates are good practice. Sadly despite my continuing attempts I fear that will never change.

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 works for me.  

No, seriously, I think it's worthwhile to post ideas that challenge what a group seems to believe.  I've certainly learned things outside of the 'echo-chamber', but nothing to change my opinions on game balance or fighter versus wizards.  

I do feel that there are a few people (Planet Algol particularly) that seem to be inviting people with different opinions to leave.  That would be a shame.  

Too many people with the same opinion has a negative result.  Look at the 'How Many Girls in Your Gaming Group' thread...  Question asked.  Question answered.  No discussion on why?  What it means?  Whether female gamers look for different things than male gamers...  What can the hobby do to make sure it is being inclusive of all genders?  Personally, I think those types of discussions are more interesting, and potentially more fruitful.  But with everyone in full agreement, there's no reason to discuss - further, if the only response for not agreeing is vitriol, there's little incentive for those who disagree to argue their position.  

Aside from a fair bit of masochism, I guess.  

Quote from: Bill;573465If you wish for a reasonable explanation of why older versions of dnd might be better than the newer ones, I can do that.

I happen to be quite familiar with most versions, playing and dming for many years. I am reasonably objective, and have had countless debates among my gamer friends about who likes what version and why.

I may be a good person to debate about these things, as I play and gm 1E/2E/3X/4E.

I would like to know what the strengths are in 3X that appeal to you so I can intelligently reply.

It's true that Brendan and yourself are probably the most reasonable posters here, I would take his offer Mguy because if you really want to be successful at game design knowledge of all the systems is your best means of real success.

Quote from: Bill;573525Usefullness and identity, not equality

Since you ninja'd my response, this is something I agree with.  

I just finally saw 'Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit' this weekend.  That's a bad type of balance - because while the BMX bandit might be able to do objectively cool things, they're objectively unnecessary since summoned angels can accomplish the same goals more effectively.  They may not be able to spray mud into a cocaine dealer's face by sliding their tires, but they can disable them...  High level 3.x can be like that, even if the wizard didn't set out to do that purpose.  That's why I consider it a flaw in the game, rather than an issue with players being dicks or DMs not keeping control of their tables.

Quote from: Bill;573465I would like to know what the strengths are in 3X that appeal to you so I can intelligently reply.

If I may respond to this, even though it wasn't addressed to me.

The reason why I think 3e was one of the most popular versions was because it offered a lot of options for established players on building a character from the vision they had in their head.  Also, even though this doesn't really bother me, a lot of people prefer the more intuitive way of ascending AC instead of THAC0 and going to a more universal d20 system.

I firmly believe that 75% of 3e players don't play 3e like the Denners.  I.e., shoot right to max level and min/max as much as possible.  You've always had a percentage of players in every edition who liked to do that, but I can't believe that most players do.

Therefore, if you don't skip right to a level 20 build and eek out every possible + that you can, you probably won't run into nearly as many problems in 3e as the folks who play like that attribute to the system.

Quote from: Bill;573525I am a roleplayer that hates builds.

But, I agree with deadDMwalking that relative balance is good.

But, here is how I define relative balance:

Its about each character having something they do that is both useful, and not overshadowed by another chracter.

Thats what relative balance means to me. Not "All classes equal"



Usefullness and identity, not equality

Exactly.  

@DeadDM, if you wanted those questions answered either post them in the thread or maybe even ask me I may even give you a serious answer even though I have already several times in multiple threads whenever it was relevant to the topic.

Quote from: Bill;573465I would like to know what the strengths are in 3X that appeal to you so I can intelligently reply.

I just posted this in the other thread not knowing a whole new thread had spawned...

I do like some things about 3e, and in fact would run a game (Especially if it involved Eberron or SpyCraft) on request.

 I like feats. Having a build tree of extra abilities for new characters, and so that players have some options to customize their character as they advance, makes introducing new players to the game easier. Later on, as they get more adept at playing, I would also let them create their own Feats.

 I like skills. Having a baseline, and having some players choose specific non-combat skills to improve helped make more interesting characters.

 The Profession skill required some rework. Instead of automatically guaranteeing players would earn X amount of gold over a given period of time, I let the players use their profession skill as a die-roll modifier for the variable amount of gold that they would earn over that time. The folks with Professions skills earned more in-between adventures this way.

 I liked the Craft skills as well. Nothing like having a character MacGuyver their way out of a difficult situation. Sadly though, not many players opted to choose or use craft skills in my games. Not sure why on this...

 The magic crafting rules were really broken, and required a complete redesign.

 Likewise the character class tables as written ensured that PrC and non-core character classes, as well as multi-class characters were always less powerful than the core classes in the game. This was fixed with optional rules in Arcana Unearthed, but for the longest time sorcerers made for better battle mages than wizards, but they were much less adept in casting new spells, making magic items, and in using new magics discovered during the course of the game.

 I never did understand the obsession with building optimal damage / spellcasting characters in lieu of creating more interesting characters for roleplaying. I think this goes back to the way 3e rewards combat much more than roleplaying. Never did I see a supplement for GMs published (with the exception of SpyCraft) that contained a concise and comprehensive set of rules for building adventures that included XP awards for non-combat and role-playing activities.

 I wouldn't blame the 3e players for that though, because that was a design weakness of the 3e itself included by the designers.

Quote from: Bill;573465If you wish for a reasonable explanation of why older versions of dnd might be better than the newer ones, I can do that.

I happen to be quite familiar with most versions, playing and dming for many years. I am reasonably objective, and have had countless debates among my gamer friends about who likes what version and why.

I may be a good person to debate about these things, as I play and gm 1E/2E/3X/4E.

I would like to know what the strengths are in 3X that appeal to you so I can intelligently reply.

Here you're reasonable. You sit down and offer up a proper exchange. Then you turn around and post this:

Quote from: Bill;573480I have even played...oh my GOD!...fighters that are NOT OPTIMIZED!!!!


All the ass kicking fun my fighters have must be imaginary.

and this:

Quote from: Bill;573490I even play fighters that talk to people they meet, and don't murder evrything that moves.

And this is what you bring to the table. So how do you think posts like these two, completely ignorant and divorced from any of the points and arguments others and I have actually presented, make you look to me? That was the point of my final conclusion. If I were curious about how older editions are actually played the willful ignorance of people like you are showing towards people who disaree with you only further cements my lack of desire to participate in those games. Perhaps if someone who HAS been reasonable throughout this entire thing offered (such as anybody who hasn't been an asshat about it like jibba) were to offer I'd consider it. You may at least not be as bad as some of the worst offenders but you do little to sway me when you are unwilling to address points I actually made.

As for why I value 3rd ed: While it has many problems (enough to set me on a course to makin my own game) it has a lot of things I straight up enjoy. For one the math is easy. With a range on a d20 I can flexibly edit the system and figure out the outcomes and consequences of simple number tampering. For 2 it has a lot of distinct, flavorful abilities and skills with definite effects along with solid DCs, DC adjustments, and ways fo reasonably adjusting these numbers given a number of variables so I as a GM can easily adjuticate resultant TNs and I as a player can reasonably gauge the likelihood of my own success divorced from whether or not I can "play the GM". In other words "Player Empowerment". 3E is home to my favorite campaign setting (Eberron) has a lot of tinker parts that I can fiddle around with. It's an all around solid system that leaves me free as a GM to adjust as I like to get the kind of play experience I desire while being solid system on its own. 3E/Pathfinder/whatever is the closest to what I want.

I don't like rules lite games as much but I'll play them if the settin can take my mind off of it. I don't like dicepools as much because the math is harder and it's a bit harder to gauge what I can and can't do. I don't like 4E for more reasons than I care to name. I never had a good experience playing 2E and the MOST of the 2e crowd here are definitely not making it seem more appealing. The fact that so few people are actually speaking out against the people being loud and ignorant only further pushes me away (though not by the same magnitude the actual ass hats are).

Edit: Now keeping in mind that 3E is my favoriteg ame I should point out that most of the time I've spent here I've been pointing out problems with it. That is because while I enjoy something it does not blind me to issues with it (which is why I started making my own game). So you can perhaps understand that while I enjoy doing one thing (making house rules) that I can separate that from what I'm talking about (how the rules actually work).

The regulars at the Gaming Den do raise some fair points about mechanical problems in D&D, the problem is that many of them argue in an incendiary and surly tone (including each other).  That, and they tend to have condescending attitudes towards fans of certain RPGs and RPG editions (such as Pathfinder and 4th Edition).

It's hard to argue with people who do this, in that it makes debate personal and acrimonious.

Another thing I've noticed is inconsistent terminology.  Several RPGSite posters haven't played 3rd and 4th, and frame their reference about Fighters vs. Wizards in AD&D terms.  Conversely, several TGD posters mostly have experience with 3rd edition Fighters.  The gap between casters and noncasters is greatest in 3rd Edition, where Spellcaster Supremacy is most apparent and dominating at high levels.  Spellcasters were overall more versatile in AD&D (especially at high levels), but the gap wasn't as big.

Quote from: MGuy;573573And this is what you bring to the table. So how do you think posts like these two, completely ignorant and divorced from any of the points and arguments others and I have actually presented, make you look to me?

Looks at your sig.  Remembers that you misquoted everyone with "translated".


Stones
Glass
Houses

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.

Here we have people playing what is likely the most popular version of the worlds most popular RPG (3.x and its clones) representing a common style of play coming to the site and finding not a single regular who agrees even in part with them. A very telling indication of group think.

While I agree with you, there should be a distinction made between those that enjoy 3e and the type of play that have the regular posters riled up.

Benoist really is a poor choice for ambassador of theRPGsite.

Quote from: Bill;573480I have even played...oh my GOD!...fighters that are NOT OPTIMIZED!!!!


All the ass kicking fun my fighters have must be imaginary.

"You Magical Tea Party and suck the DM's cock. If you like the taste of that... fine by me I guess? I'm not here to start a fight."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;573580Looks at your sig.  Remembers that you misquoted everyone with "translated".


Stones
Glass
Houses

Stones and glass houses indeed Sacro. However one person returning the favor of what so many other people on this site have done does not make the actual act any better. Though I rather liked my translations. At least they covered what people actually said instead of the regular practice by the posters I translated who would regularly build a strawman and attack it instead of any position I actually held. The only reason I evr stopped is because apparently only team theRPGsite may ever troll a thread (despite my translations actually being on topic and reflective of what the poster actually said).