Quote from: Rum Cove;573581While 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.

It's too bad my IL for Gleichman seems to be broken not only is he impossibly anal and only has one narrow playstyle but he can't even realize I play 3x that's why the "denners" arguments are utter bullshit to me. I understand everything thing they say but stupid is and stupid does and apparently it's terminal in their case.

Other words quit with the mischaractrization the "denners" and Gleichman are quite enough to fill the site quota already.

Quote from: Benoist;573582"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."

Crap, Ben's a Denner!

Quote from: Libertad;573577The 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.

I like this quote when referring to the Den:

QuoteThere are two things you can learn from the Gaming Den:
1) Good design practices.
2) How to be a zookeeper for hyper-intelligent shit-flinging apes. -DSMatticus

And we do call each other out for being regular angry ass hats (Kaelik) and have no qualms about arguing with each other when certain posters do nothing but troll (Roy). That's why I said when I was accused of being on the same "team" as Kaelik that I don't like him but not liking someone does not cause me to not be able to admit when they are right. Almost the same thing with Frank except that I've learned more from him. While I'd probably never choose to play at a table with either of them they still make solid points, and at least both,  offer insights to how to get what I want out of design along while calling me an idiot. I don't mind name calling or vitriol as long as their something I can learn from it.

Quote from: MGuy;573593And we do call each other out for being regular angry ass hats (Kaelik) and have no qualms about arguing with each other when certain posters do nothing but troll (Roy). That's why I said when I was accused of being on the same "team" as Kaelik that I don't like him but not liking someone does not cause me to not be able to admit when they are right. Almost the same thing with Frank except that I've learned more from him. While I'd probably never choose to play at a table with either of them they still make solid points, and at least both,  offer insights to how to get what I want out of design along while calling me an idiot. I don't mind name calling or vitriol as long as their something I can learn from it.

This may work with the Den, but not so much with others.

In politics, "riling up the base" involves vitriol and "fighting words" to get your supporters motivated.  However, it pushes away fence-sitters and dissenters.  The Gaming Den is great at riling up the base, but not so much with gathering new supporters.  And calling people idiots for not having extensive knowledge of rules minutia or making mistakes about the rules just makes one look like a smug elitist.  There's thousands of pages worth of D&D sourcebooks; it's inevitable that people will get things wrong or interpret things differently, especially with poorly-worded rules.

Quote from: Libertad;573598it's inevitable that people will get things wrong or interpret things differently, especially with poorly-worded rules.

Poorly Worded!

Quote from: MGuy;573423I'm to be impressed by older editions because they had less rules? Because they are older?

You don't need to be impressed by, or play, or like older editions, but it's helpful to understand why certain features of the rules in later editions are the way they are, which is turn may suggest some alternatives.

Quote from: MGuy;573423I've been given no reason, in any of the aruments the one thread spawned, to CARE about them.

You've been given a number of reasons to CARE, but you've stoppered your ears, as when I spent a post outlining differences between 1e and 3e.

Your response?

Quote from: MGuy;550620I do not know what happened in 1E or what 1E was like.I can only speak of what I know about 3e and a bit about 2e and 4e. I do not know that your numbers are accurate.

With bullshit like this, you get zero sympathy from me for the way you've been received on this site, MGuy.

As far as the rest of the Denners and their sympathizers goes, I agree that the three-point-x-ray fighter is borked.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;550609You and all the other newbs rushing to defend Frank's bullshit want to say that high-level 3e play makes fighters significantly [weaker] compared to wizards? You won't get much of an argument from me. The problems with spellcasters were obvious to me as soon as I picked up the core rules for 3e. In case you missed it the first time, here it is again.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;550320My personal experience from playing blue box, 1e, red box, and 3e D&D is that most of the so-called problems about fighters came from trying to make spellcasters as reliable and dependable as the guy with the sword. More spells per level, easy access to new spells, little or no disruption, faster casting, easing restrictions on armor, improved bypassing of magic resistance, easy crafting of spells, wands, &c - all of these removed the inherent challenges of playing magic-users. Magic-users in pre-2e D&D traded access to great power for vulnerability and resource limits. Fighters, on the other hand, were a less limited resource and far less vulnerable, in exchange for a lower but consistent deliverable level of power.

Short-sighted designers, egged on by stupid players, broke spellcasters, then claimed that fighters were useless. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

In the rush to make everyone as effective as the 1e fighter in combat, the tradeoffs for other classes were ground down to nothing. Address that, and you solve your 'fighter problem.'

Beyond that, the Den-symps rely on a number of assumptions which I don't share, and to be fair, they don't share mine, either.

The one that strikes me as flat-out ridiculous is "magical tea party."

Quote from: Black Vulmea;570543A clever referee - that is, a referee with three or four neurons to rub together - can hose your characters anytime she pleases. The rules cannot save your character if the referee wants them to fail.

By your definition, virtually ALL ROLEPLAYING GAMES are magical tea parties.

There's a point at which productive discussion reaches an impasse, an unbridgeable divide, when no one can agree on the nature of the problem.

But what I find most off-putting in this whole debacle is Frank the Troll, Man inciting this mess with his dishonest strawman arguments. While I may fundamentally disagree with the assumptions advanced by K, dDMw, and Mistborn, I don't think the Den-symps are abject liars like Frank.

And for what it's worth, I don't agree with all of the arguments advanced by the locals, either.

Quote from: Rum Cove;573581While 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.

Once the flamethrowers come out (and they come out *immediately here* every time), it's difficult to finesse the target selection.

Quote from: Rum Cove;573581Benoist really is a poor choice for ambassador of theRPGsite.

Benoist in tone and opinion is exactly what Pundit used to be. One would think that Pundit put him into place to allow himself a break from being the site jerk 24/7. It was hard work, and I sure it got tiring.

Benoist sadly is very much representative of therpgsite. You come here and don't hold to the party line on gaming, and you get him in your face.

Nonsense. I've never toed the party line and I don't much care for Benoist the Moderator, and yet I've never had him in my face.

I remain me, foul mouthed and unrepentant and vastly over (or under) informed on something like 3/4's of all of gamedom, which is way too much.

I don't play anything 'right', as I'm sure MGuy (or maybe Kaelik) would be happy to tell you about in regards to 3.X, and I'm sure the old schoolers are rolling their eyes at my sad fumbling attempt to be a "real adventurer' in the thunderdome right now.

Quote from: Spike;573611Nonsense. I've never toed the party line  

My impression is different. You're generally right in there siding with the bully gang, and I can't recall you ever opposing them.

But perhaps I just failed to notice. Do you have an example of your independence?

I've learned a few things from the Den and the discussions they spawned.

(1) There is no such thing as an argument in good faith coming from CharOpers and Denners. It's all about twisting what others are saying, ignoring posts when they don't suit the thesis you want to make, claiming to be a victim, coopting people to your cause one inch at a time, arguing the same stuff over and over until the persons you disagree with just give up due to the length of the walls of text or your general fakely oblivious behavior, with the occasional meltdown for the lulz (thanks MGuy), and finally declaring "victory" when nobody cares anymore.

(2) There is no common ground between my approach to gaming, and theirs. Conversely, this means 5e cannot become the "edition to rule them all". It'll appeal to some people, and I don't expect it to suck balls like 4e did, but it will not "rally the troops" in the way WotC hopes it will.

(3) You can't make any disparaging comment about this or that edition without being piled on with emotional responses from people who like the edition you're criticizing. There's also no way your argument is not going to be portrayed by your opponents as an extreme or absolute. Once you know that and accept that, and don't give a shit about it, you're free to say what you want. Just accept it's going to create a backlash occasionally.

(4) My fan hate club is alive and kicking. Hi guys! Hope you enjoy the show! Keep on hatin'!

(5) I'm now genuinely worried for gleichman's sanity. I hope he's okay. If you need some psychological help, dude, I can hook you up with someone. Free of charge.

(6) These discussions have been entertaining, but also a massive waste of time, all things considered. I have some work to do.

QuoteThoughts Provoked by the Den Invasion(TM)

So. Inasmuch as there was one, it did not do these forums good. No practical insight has been gained, but a lot of time has been wasted by both sides. I suggest mutual disengagement.

Quote from: Benoist;573617I've learned a few things from the Den and the discussions they spawned.



(6) These discussions have been entertaining, but also a massive waste of time, all things considered. I have some work to do.

Yep.. Good thing I am running Igbar tonight.  Boys are in an adventure I wrote the bones of back in 1980...and I have a 2006 meritage I cannot wait to open.

Quote from: LordVreeg;573621Yep.. Good thing I am running Igbar tonight.  Boys are in an adventure I wrote the bones of back in 1980...and I have a 2006 meritage I cannot wait to open.

It's a good thing to realize that this stuff is a waste of time. Allowed me to disengage, and read through the AS&SH Players' Manual instead. As you know, I read the whole thing in 24 hours (250 pages). I haven't been sucked in a rules book like this for some time. There's good stuff coming on the horizon, folks. I can feel it.

Quote from: Benoist;573617I've learned a few things from the Den and the discussions they spawned.

(1) There is no such thing as an argument in good faith coming from CharOpers and Denners. It's all about twisting what others are saying, ignoring posts when they don't suit the thesis you want to make, claiming to be a victim, coopting people to your cause one inch at a time, arguing the same stuff over and over until the persons you disagree with just give up due to the length of the walls of text or your general fakely oblivious behavior, with the occasional meltdown for the lulz (thanks MGuy), and finally declaring "victory" when nobody cares anymore.

In defense of CharOps, a lot of 3rd Edition optimizers aren't as crass as the Gaming Den.  The latter is just one community out of several, and not the "face" of the playstyle.

Quote from: Libertad;573638In defense of CharOps, a lot of 3rd Edition optimizers aren't as crass as the Gaming Den.  They're just one community out of several, and not the "face" of the playstyle.

Yeah, you are right. They're not all like this. It's a pity that these guys are spoiling online conversation about games like 3rd ed and feed the WotC echo chamber as a result. I need to point out that I have nothing against optimizing a character in a game per se, personally, as long as it doesn't undermine the other aspects of role playing games I do care about as player or DM.