TheRPGSite

As the furor dies down I find myself contemplating recent events and discussion on this forum.  The very first thing I note, as I look back with a dispassionate eye, is that for all their general rudeness, the Denners did bring with them an interesting perspective, spurring thoughts and discussion that should have enriched both forums.

I rather suspect, however, that in time they will retreat back to their own place no wiser. I should hope, however, that some here... aside from myself.. will have given additional thought to the topic at hand.

Ultimately the point of contention falls around play styles, and if you approach your gaming as if your play style was the only valid one, then what discussion can be had?  

Let us not be mistaken about this. While the long debate has been about the relative merits of 'mundanes' vs 'Wizards', ultimately it is a playstyle issue.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of rules in D&D, and even still relatively simple decisions about where to fight monsters can grostesquely alter the game. It is not proper D&D to fight in the skies any more than it is proper D&D to fight only in cramped dungeons. Ultimately, the players, to include the DM, make those calls... and the fundamentally alter the way the game plays.

In the open air, on mounts, the game does favor the Ranger above all else, with his excellent archer skills 'baked in', and the high wisdom and high spot skills he can set engagement ranges that make a mockery of every other class. In dark cramped spaces the Rogue might prove superior, able to hide from the sharpest wizard and able to end the fight with a single act... depending too on which rules the DM enforces most stringently.  The wizard may be the most powerful in the widest variety of circumstances, but then too the GM might include a number of ant-magic enemies (Golems, silencing critters, lots of SR monsters) that makes a mockery of his abilities as well.

So we are back to Playstyles. And ultimately, the Den Invasion brought with them a singular view of How The Game Is Played, one which confirmed their Biases about wizards.

Ultimately, they should have noted that most people agreed with them that Fighters got the short end of the stick in 3.X.  I, for example, learned that the Fighter's Saves had gotten much worse than in previous editions, creating the trope that fighters were a charm bitch in 3E that wasn't true previously.  For the first time I seriously looked at range combat (and for that matter, ranged perceptions), and realized that the limitations of a battle mat had given an unnatural advantage to Wizards over archers (who are generally forced into bow-fights at melee ranges).  But, sadly, it seems that in their obsessive NEED to be proven right that they were unable to concede any point, any rebuttal, or for that matter even acknowledge that a few simple changes to fighter classes would be more paletable to players and nearly (if not totally) as effective as the drastic magification they demanded.

I find the greatest strength in an argument is the willingness to admit you might be wrong. On the internet it often seems that any admission of error, technical or philosophical, is viewed as some sort of great weakness. Too often it seems that the way to 'win' arguments is by simply being too stubborn or stupid to ever concede any ground at all.  Aristotle wept.  With this one invention we have single handedly destroyed two and a half millenia of persuasion.  But that is neither here nor there.

I, personally, have been aware that Fighters in specific, and mundanes in general, got a short, smelly, stick in 3E for almost 12 years. I became aware of it when I got a look at the skill list for fighters, and their skill points. I got a second look when I saw the unique fighting abilities given to the barbarian, and yet another when I saw how brutal a rogue could be with the more permissive rules for Sneak Attack (never mind the special melee abilities they get at mid levels, like Strength damage with every SA). Suddenly the expert in Melee felt a little less like an expert than an unloved bastard child allowed outside only when the neighbors were at church.

But I never looked at the fighter and thought the solution was... magic. Not magic items, not spells, not magic abilities. The solution, to me, was to give the fighters back their melee mojo, which it seemed had been farmed out to these other classes.  It seemed to me that fighters should be more able to shrug off spells, via good saves or gaining some sort of resistance... realizing only slowly just how badly their saves stacked up to classes like the Cleric (a spell casting powerhouse, with HP) and even the pathetic Monk.

But I have learned, by this discussion. I've learned how much harder 3.x makes it to disrupt spells, for example, or how many ways that made it easier to gain those 'game breaking combos' of spells that seem to drive discussion here. I have learned, by argumentation, that even via magic item it is nearly impossible to avoid certain spells (find me the magic item in core that make you immune to mind control spells. Find me the magic item that you can permanently use to see invisible that doesn't cost 100k...).

Sadly, I feel that the Denners, and perhaps a few of my fellows here, haven't learned anything.  Of course they haven't. THis is the internet, if you learn ANYTHING from the guy you're arguing with, he won!  They haven't learned that much of what they assume about the power of Wizards comes from permissive DMing, from lax interpretation of charm rules or planar binding.  Just from observing the two thunderdome threads I've seen how magical fact finding can play out depending on the GM!  It is of supreme irony, to me, that for all the Dens talk about 'scry and die' tactics, a Den GM refused to give up any information at all to the half dozen or so spells I used. Maybe I did it wrong, maybe I compartmentalized too well by deliberately avoiding questions about demons. Maybe it was just my infamous luck (80% chance of getting something from Divination, the GM rolls an 89...  who knows what I would have learned? Seriously, though, I roll like that in real life too! I recently rolled a 3d6 statline and got all single digit stats!).  Of course, it is the spell casters who gain from that sort of fact finding, not the mundanes, not really.

I know they won't learn, perhaps can't, because they keep trotting out the same tired arguments over and over again, never once acknowledging that people have even responded to them, as if they want to fail the Turing test. They can't objectively show that a fighter built under even the most restrictive, most universally acceptable, standards will objectively fall behind an equivilent Melee Monster (see Lord Mistborn's Timmy the Lame vs random CR8 monsters, where he hit par in two of three encounters... and this was meant as proof the fighter failed), they can't ever acknowledge, for example, that if the wizard fails to attack the fighter first that it could be a short fight... for the wizard.  These are obvious cases, ones that don't actually weaken their core argument... that wizards are stronger at end-game, yet they can't keep from recycling them like faceless extras in an action movie.  

So, at the end of the day I, for one, am comfortable in saying that, for all the annoyance they've brought, that we have gained far more from their silly little forum invasion than they have.

So thank you MGuy and Kaelik, thank you Lord Mistborn (you poor dumb bastard), and DeadDM (who at least seems like a nice and fair minded fellow).

Thank you for provoking interesting discussion here. Thank you for being too blind to your own failings to actually learn anything yourselves... to be reasonable facsimilies of human beings instead of repetitive response generators.  

And Ultimately: Thank you for entertaining me these last few months.

Now get back out there and, as always:

Entertain me, Motherfuckers!

tl;dr

I be verbose.

I took another look at Prestige Classes and worked out how to use them like Greyhawk Paladins or the Companion set Avengers/Druids/Paladins/etc.

Spoiler

The Esoteric Assassin

"Some legendary abilities purported to be in the province of ninja training include invisibility, walking on water, and control over the natural elements..."

The Esoteric Assassin’s training in the dark arts allows them to carry out missions of death, for with their spells they can infiltrate and slay with impunity. Esoteric Assassins belong to secret societies hidden in cities or based in remote fortresses in the wilderness.  

Requirements: Assassin (or Thug) of 5th level with an Intelligence of 15 or higher and a Dexterity of 16 or higher who has assassinated or challenged to a duel and slain an Esoteric Assassin of higher level for the purpose of joining their society.

Esoteric Assassins progress as an Assassin but gain the benefits of an improved Saving Throw versus Poison and the ability to cast spells. They may progress to a maximum of the 14 level, and must assassinate or challenge to the duel and slay a 14th level Esoteric Assassin to advance to that level.

Level XP  Poison Save Spells:1st/2nd/3rd/4th
6         65,000     11   1
7       110,000 10    2
8       190,000 10   3 1
9       335,000 9   3 2
10       550,000 9   3 3 1
11       800,000 5   3 3 2
12    1,325,000 5   3 3 3 1
13    1,875,000 4   3 3 3 2
14    2,125,000 4   3 3 3 3

Spells are prepared and cast the same as a Magic-User, and cannot be cast while the Esoteric Assassin is wearing any armor.

1st Level Spells
Audible Glamer (2)
Change Self (Illusionist, 2e 1)
Detect Poison (UA Druid 1, 2e Cleric 1)
Feather Fall
Fog Cloud (Illusionist 2, 2e 2)
Jump
Sleep
Ventriloquism

2nd Level Spells
Alter Self (2e)
Darkness 15’ Radius
Illusionary Script (Illusionist 3, 2e 3)
Invisibility
Pass Without A Trace (Druid 1, 2e Priest 1)
Spider Climb (1)
Unknowable Alignment (Cleric 1, Reversed)

3rd Level Spells
Misdirection (Illusionist 2, 2e 2)
Non-Detection (Illusionist 3, 2e 3)
Protection From Good 10’ Radius (Reversed)

4th Level Spells
Clairaudience (3)
Clairvoyance (3)
Dimension Door
Improved Invisibility (Illusionist 4, 2e 4)
Poison (reversed Cleric 4)

What I realize from looking at the Greyhawk Paladin as the original "Prestige Class" is that how much the CHA 17 requirement served as a "rarity"; if you were lucky you could play a Paladin but you couldn't plan on it.

Something about Fighters getting the short end of the stick in 3.X, and how people dismiss others.

Quote from: Spike;573383I be verbose.

;)

I think one post out of the (literally) thousands of others in these threads sums things up for me.

Quote from: MGuy;558024I've never played older editions like 1E, 0E, and I'm not sure what edition Ad&D is.

While I appreciate the honesty in that admission, it doesn't change the fact that there's some profound ignorance about the history of the game which colors the arguments advanced.

Sure, thats personally damning insofar as it goes.

I personally don't feel that someone who started with 3X and doesn't know anything prior is disadvantaged in identifying problems, and only slightly disadvantaged at coming up with solutions due to a lack of depth in their understanding.

It is the inability to overcome that, however, that singles out MGuy for mockery. He doesn't know, and doesn't WANT to know... possibly because it would risk making him look like he was admitting he was wrong... which he wrongly conflates with... I dunno... losing.

What I learned from the "debate" here:

Frank, Kaelik, and others from the Den were indeed right in that people can and will gripe endlessly at the mere suggestion that the fighter have "nice things". Before the conversation here I hel that people, and probably most people would, consider that a "fighter" can and should be able to do what the rules said. That actually changing the fighter would not bring about that much turmoil. The Fight v Wiz thread, and its attendees have taught me that I was quite wrong.

I am surprised that there are people who play 3e and don't realize the power disparity there or why that isn't good for the game. It had always been so accepted for me that when pathfinder announced they would attend to the problem I was actually excited especially after 4e went in a direction I didn't want it to go (making everybody about as effective as the fighter). Only on this board have I ever, in any discussion about any 3e or prior edition, heard the suggestion that fighters stood on equal ground with casters. I had always heard of it as just being accepted or even desired by the fan base that fighters suck and wizards rule in the end game. This is the only place where I've actually seen any argument to the contrary and considering that most people with this stance change the rules to make it fit I'm not surprised.

This place has reaffirmed the value of the Den for me. I lurked on the Den as a guest for a while before posting and got lambasted for not knowin anything about how actual game desin worked. I whined of course and demanded proof, numbers, some kind of evidence to back up the insults. It was given to me. In fact it was an argument with Frank that made me spend actual time learning about game design and how it worked. So out of the discourse there I learn something. The discourse here on the other hand has been lacking in substance. Instead of getting yelled at for makin illogical arguments, presenting falacies to support unsteady assertions I get people insulting me (and others) for being able to read, follow rules, and do math. I've had more intelligible disagreements with Kaelik over the fiddly bits of Diplomacy than the "Play the rules not the game!" or "3rd is gfor assholes!" mantra I've found here.

Yes I've never played Ad+d, 1e or 0e but none of those games are of any interest to me because 3e is about as close to what I want as most RPGs get. Why would I want to o backwards to editions which spawn people with ideas like Benoist's or Storm's? If I'm to be enticed into even being curious about prior editions then you'd at least have to produce people who don't openly state that they are contentious of people who don't think like them. Even when these editions are brought up as "solutions" to my problem when expanded upon I find them highly lacking. I'm to be impressed by older editions because they had less rules? Because they are older? I've been given no reason, in any of the aruments the one thread spawned, to CARE about them. The sum total of the attitudes and views of the people who bring them up read as a giant "DON'T PLAY THESE EDITIONS BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT YOU'LL TURN INTO" sign for me. Any curiousity I may have held about 2e or prior editions ahs been thoroughly murdered by the people here who play them.

TL: DR: This place has taught me to never put fighters into any game I play, there are people out there who hate rules and don't follow them, and the best reason to not play older editions of DnD are the very people who play them.

If you care about design, then you should care at least a little bit about the history of the game, since all the things we have now are built on things that came before.  Understanding why certain things were changed and how it affected the game over the years gives you a better understanding of the games we have now.  

You say you don't want to go "backwards", but modern D&D is so different from classic D&D that its evolution isn't founded upon "this is more elegant" principles, it's founded upon changing the core of the game significantly (producing, IMO, both cool and not-so-cool things).  You're going sideways, not back, and so there's real value in analyzing those older editions, especially because there are few, if any, modern RPGs that emulate that experience.  You might nitpick about things here or there you think are clunky, but the core of the game still has value in it.

So really, either you care about games and how they work and are willing to play and learn about them in good faith, or you're not.  If you're going to take a tiny sampling of the community you don't get along with and use that to color your perceptions, then how much do you really care about the design and finding about how it works in actual play?

Not to mention utterly failing to grasp that there are certain definitions of "Nice Things" that utterly go against people conception of Fighters.

As a note, I'll point out that I've never seen a game were "everyone is a wizard"... explicitly or not-so-explicitly... was popular.

True: the Dark Sword RPG was always going to be a marginal property (what with it being sold in a paperback novel format), but even in that setting the main character, the HERO of the trilogy it was based off of... was the guy with no magic at all.

Me? I want fighters with nice things. I still don't want fighters with moar magick powerz, or whatever... as, it seems, do most people.

Quote from: SpikeNot to mention utterly failing to grasp that there are certain definitions of "Nice Things" that utterly go against people conception of Fighters.

There are lots of things that don't aesthetically please me, I just don't play those games.

D&D has been put in the unfortunate position of being what RPGs are about to a lot of people, and with that the expectation it will be all things to all fans, or even just most things to most fans.  That's not going to happen, and the reasons for it almost happening with 3e I don't think had much to do with the design as it did the alignment of the stars regarding other things.

Oh, I agree.  The point here is that the move to give Fighters "Nice THings" as defined by, essentially, making them "Not Fighters" is an attempt to cater to a minority viewpoint.

And, as if that weren't enough to be offensive, insofar as anything in a fandom is truly ever offensive, its being done out of a misguided and willfully under-informed view of the game.

What the hell is "The Den"?

Quote from: Piestrio;573446What the hell is "The Den"?

The Gaming Den, forum home of Frank Trollman.

Quote from: jeff37923;573447The Gaming Den, forum home of Frank Trollman.

I see.


And there was an invasion?

Quote from: Piestrio;573448I see.


And there was an invasion?

We tend to have that effect on other forums.

'They are so wrong! I have to go over there and bore them into submission! or maybe i'll just bitch about them from my side of the fence.'

Not counting Frank, who did his usual run over here and then left again... I count something like five die hard posters all singing the same refrain and using the same forum jargon...

... and in terms of cross forum drama given the relative size of the community?


Yeah, I'd call that an invasion.

There have been more, of course, over the month and a half or so this has been running, I'm just counting those with the stamina to say the course, though a few are simply stragglers that got lost along the way.

I agree with peregrin. McGuy, i think you would benefit tremendously from playing 1E and 2E (as well as playing around with some of the old 2E cpmplete books and supplements like skills and powers). I think you will find a lot to dislike. But you will understand the developments in 3E a lot more if you play those games and you might be pleasantly surprised in a few places.  Also I wouldn't judge 1E and 2E because of some posters here.

Quote from: Peregrin;573426So really, either you care about games and how they work and are willing to play and learn about them in good faith, or you're not.  If you're going to take a tiny sampling of the community you don't get along with and use that to color your perceptions, then how much do you really care about the design and finding about how it works in actual play?

I have to agree with this. While I certainly have my narrow band of preferences, I do play games I think I won't like so I can understand them (and sometimes I end up liking them). I might not have been a huge fan of gumshoe when I heard about how it worked, and I definitely come from a very different style than it advocates, but I ran it and tried to do so on its own terms so I could see how the game really plays. My approach is even if i dont like 99% of the system, there may still be some little gem in there that I do like. I figure if I can bitch about a system for hours on the internet, the least I can do is play the thing to see if the if the text and rumors match the reality.

Dont get me wrong, i dont think folks are obligated to play games that dont appeal to them, but I do think if you are going to make system and design a big deal, then you will benefit from some exposure to systems outside your comfort zone.

Quote from: MGuy;573423What I learned from the "debate" here:

Frank, Kaelik, and others from the Den were indeed right in that people can and will gripe endlessly at the mere suggestion that the fighter have "nice things". Before the conversation here I hel that people, and probably most people would, consider that a "fighter" can and should be able to do what the rules said. That actually changing the fighter would not bring about that much turmoil. The Fight v Wiz thread, and its attendees have taught me that I was quite wrong.

I am surprised that there are people who play 3e and don't realize the power disparity there or why that isn't good for the game. It had always been so accepted for me that when pathfinder announced they would attend to the problem I was actually excited especially after 4e went in a direction I didn't want it to go (making everybody about as effective as the fighter). Only on this board have I ever, in any discussion about any 3e or prior edition, heard the suggestion that fighters stood on equal ground with casters. I had always heard of it as just being accepted or even desired by the fan base that fighters suck and wizards rule in the end game. This is the only place where I've actually seen any argument to the contrary and considering that most people with this stance change the rules to make it fit I'm not surprised.

This place has reaffirmed the value of the Den for me. I lurked on the Den as a guest for a while before posting and got lambasted for not knowin anything about how actual game desin worked. I whined of course and demanded proof, numbers, some kind of evidence to back up the insults. It was given to me. In fact it was an argument with Frank that made me spend actual time learning about game design and how it worked. So out of the discourse there I learn something. The discourse here on the other hand has been lacking in substance. Instead of getting yelled at for makin illogical arguments, presenting falacies to support unsteady assertions I get people insulting me (and others) for being able to read, follow rules, and do math. I've had more intelligible disagreements with Kaelik over the fiddly bits of Diplomacy than the "Play the rules not the game!" or "3rd is gfor assholes!" mantra I've found here.

Yes I've never played Ad+d, 1e or 0e but none of those games are of any interest to me because 3e is about as close to what I want as most RPGs get. Why would I want to o backwards to editions which spawn people with ideas like Benoist's or Storm's? If I'm to be enticed into even being curious about prior editions then you'd at least have to produce people who don't openly state that they are contentious of people who don't think like them. Even when these editions are brought up as "solutions" to my problem when expanded upon I find them highly lacking. I'm to be impressed by older editions because they had less rules? Because they are older? I've been given no reason, in any of the aruments the one thread spawned, to CARE about them. The sum total of the attitudes and views of the people who bring them up read as a giant "DON'T PLAY THESE EDITIONS BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT YOU'LL TURN INTO" sign for me. Any curiousity I may have held about 2e or prior editions ahs been thoroughly murdered by the people here who play them.

TL: DR: This place has taught me to never put fighters into any game I play, there are people out there who hate rules and don't follow them, and the best reason to not play older editions of DnD are the very people who play them.

If 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.

Quote from: One Horse Town;573449We tend to have that effect on other forums.

'They are so wrong! I have to go over there and bore them into submission! or maybe i'll just bitch about them from my side of the fence.'

Ah... I tend to stay away from threads filled with tedious people.

I see my policy is paying dividends.

It staggers me that so many people have enjoyed D&D and played fighters without realizing how underpowered they are. Thank god the denners have arrived to shit it up for those poor ignorant fools.

Quote from: Fiasco;573475It staggers me that so many people have enjoyed D&D and played fighters without realizing how underpowered they are. Thank god the denners have arrived to shit it up for those poor ignorant fools.

I have even played...oh my GOD!...fighters that are NOT OPTIMIZED!!!!


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

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.

What're you, one of those 'role player' people who doesn't even understand the basics of how to use all the bonuses to the best advantage?  Noob.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Panzerkraken;573486What're you, one of those 'role player' people who doesn't even understand the basics of how to use all the bonuses to the best advantage?  Noob.  :rolleyes:

I even play fighters that talk to people they meet, and don't murder evrything that moves.

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

:jaw-dropping:

Sacrilege!

Quote from: Fiasco;573475It staggers me that so many people have enjoyed D&D and played fighters without realizing how underpowered they are. Thank god the denners have arrived to shit it up for those poor ignorant fools.

Fun 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.

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.

Some people have managed to play this game for over 3 decades without constantly worrying about the mechanical crap their characters can do, comparing uniqueness and power levels with fellow players and crying about relative slices of fun pie.

Keep in mind deadDM, being a trollosn't the awful thing here it elsewhere. Trolling isn't something you get banned for. But when five to sixnew members join about the same time, post together making largelythesame points and clearly represent the PoV of a rival forum, it is obvious what is going on. And the only reason I raised the issue is because kailik complained that people were being mean to him and I wasn't rushing to his defense (which apparently is my job here in his eyes). So my only point was, when you storm a board like that it is only to be expected that you will be met with hostility so it kinds of undercuts his request for sympathy.

Even though I do think you are part of the august surprise, I will say I like you just fine as poster and have had no problem communicating with you on these subjects (even if we disagree a lot). Hopefully you will stick around and will find we agree on a number of things once the subject shifts to something different.

My 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.

Instead they are called trolls, insulted, and attacked at every turn. The amount of bile hurled at them is a further marker of how bad things have become. No regular speaks out against this. Even the more reasoned posters like Brenden and CRKrueger join the attack, and fail to call their fellows on their poor behavior.

I've seen this before, the Forge being the best example. Indeed the similarities are stunning. Ron called WoD players brain-damaged, and the Forge backed him up as a site. Now regulars here call 3.x players OCD and aspergers, and the site backs them too.

You'd think that given the history here and the regulars' opinion of the Forge- that very concept would shame them. But instead they post self-declared victory laps threads like this one. Disgusting in the extreme.

It is in the nature of self-selecting groups to become calcified in the opinion and more extreme over time. They begin to think of anything different than themselves as "the other", creatures that are stupid at best and evil in their intent at worse.

The site may well not ban you (unlike the Forge), but it will insult and attack you using the most vile langauge at every turn as they cheer each other on until you leave it in disgust. And many posters of the past representing all sorts of styles and ideas have done just that- killing the variety of thought with each passing.

Therpgsite is so calacified now that it may as well be a fossil.


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.

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).

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!

(http://willowfeller.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ten-commandments1.jpg?w=535)

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550616#post550616).

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "feeding the WotC echo chamber."  The Den is just as critical of the company and 5th Edition as The RPG Site is, although for very different reasons.

Or do you mean the reinforcement of WotC defenders' viewpoints as a result of combative arguments?

Quote from: Libertad;573642I'm not sure what you mean by "feeding the WotC echo chamber."

I mean that WotC considers arguments about absolute balance and player entitlement and 'the fighter sucks balls because he doesn't have abilities I can leverage against the DM' lines of thought as 'factions' that matter, that they should cater to in some way, shape or form. The fact that the whole-mechanics-discussion-all-the-time of forum led to a shift in design in 3rd ed that gave us stuff like PHB2 and Book of Nine Swords and heralded the advent of 4e, which now forms its own clique WotC has to respond to with 5e's design in some way in order to fulfill its 'big tent' intent in the first place.

There's no full coming back from that hell WotC built for itself. Otherwise you'll just recreate the fracture 4e was with the previous audience of the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;573541If 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.

I agree with the above, but I will also add that when 3E came out it had the OGL. Because of the OGL, there was an explosion of creativity in general gaming and D&D gaming in particular with tens of thousands of products coming out. This was and is also one of the main reasons why 3E is the most popular versions of the game in existance.

What I learned from this experience is not everyone likes you and some people actually hate or think of me less over a silly game.  Also I learned I like Ben more every day. I may not agree with him on many things but I like him. He has balls and that is always a good thing in a woman's eyes, trust me boys. :D

Quote from: Benoist;573622It'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.

This is why I'm working more and posting less. I see at least 5 games I must try and probably buy.

1. Labyrinth Lord
2. DCC
3. ACKS
4. AS & SH
5. 5e

Quote from: Marleycat;573659This is why I working more I see at least 5 games I must try.

1. Labyrinth Lord
2. DCC
3. ACKS
4. AS& SH
5. 5e

It's a good list. If you've never tried B/X you should definitely give LL a shot. DCC RPG is totally awesome in a 70s Sword & Sorcery HELL YEAH kind of way. ACKS is basically LL plus domain management and a few tweaks that streamline the game (one of the best written, most clearly written RPG products I've ever had the chance to read, honestly). 5e ... meh, I just lost faith, but whatever. Try it.

AS&SH... I'll talk a lot more about it in the future. Stay tuned.

Quote from: Benoist;573662It's a good list. If you've never tried B/X you should definitely give LL a shot. DCC RPG is totally awesome in a 70s Sword & Sorcery HELL YEAH kind of way. ACKS is basically LL plus domain management and a few tweaks that streamline the game (one of the best written, most clearly written RPG products I've ever had the chance to read, honestly). 5e ... meh, I just lost faith, but whatever. Try it.

AS&SH... I'll talk a lot more about it in the future. Stay tuned.

Jeff gave me all his LL stuff on flash drive it's a beautiful and simple game.  I have Moldavay Basic (thanks again Jeff), haven't played it but it looks simple and fun. I know we disagree about 5e but that's ok. As for AS & SH I await what more you have to say. So many good games and no time. That's not even counting my preferred games like Dark Heresy and Mage the Awakening. :D

I think we all need to take a step back and give our heads a shake.

No human is perfect, and no human will write the perfect rules. Perfection is an imaginary concept that only exists in peoples' mind.

Can someone write the perfect rules? No.

Can people enjoy something that is imperfect? Yes, people do that every day.

That doesn't mean we should slum and accept mediocrity, but, just as a child's tantrums will not meaningfully solve the whatever is distressing the child; trying to create a perfect RPG will not create a perfect RPG.

No iteration of the D&D rules will ever make everyone who plays them happy with them as long as there is more than one human being. There is not "fixing" it. You can massage, tweak and radically restructure it, but as long as people have opinions it will not please everybody.

There is no "fix"; the "fix" in in your own head.

I play & run oldschool D&D. It's not perfect. I used to try and houserule it into perfection, but I realized I was chasing a pipe dream. Now I just try to run a good game, intellectual exercises be damned.

Quote from: gleichman;573613My 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?

Sure. I shop at Hot Topic like all the other non-conformists.

Seriously: If I had a gang here, they all left years ago for, I dunno, Gamer Haven or some crap.  

Oh, wait: To prove my independence there's like... some sort of test right? I gotta spit in the eye of The Man or something?  You know, prove it to all the other independents?

Grow the fuck up, man.   We both know that the only thing you'd accept as proof is me attacking targets you approve of, which would make me exactly... not independent at all.

Quote from: gleichman;573613My 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?

What utter horseshit.  "If you don't protest enough, then you support them."


This is exactly the kind of shit attitude that made me stop posting in Tangency years ago, and then rpg.net as a whole.

Quote from: Spike;573690Grow the fuck up, man.   We both know that the only thing you'd accept as proof is me attacking targets you approve of, which would make me exactly... not independent at all.

You overstate my request, It wouldn't have to be a 'target' I approve of, or even an opinion that I approve of. It could be as simple as Black Vulmea saying it agreed with McGuy or myself on something. It could be something you've already done, just pass on a link.

But I understand your refusal, and shall ignore you claim. Thus I'll stick with my current impression of you as in lockstep with the tone and nature of therpgsite as represented by the likes of Benoist and Sacrosanct.

Hey, whatever gets you through the day, man.


I'm not the masochist who insists on returning to a forum where he hates everyone, and they hate him right back.


Meanwhile, I'll be over in Mom's Minivan... its less conformist than the bus.

Quote from: MGuy;573573Here you're reasonable. You sit down and offer up a proper exchange. Then you turn around and post this:



and this:

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).

I am always reasonable.

The post you singled out there was humor.

I'm telling you, man. MGuy would fail the Turning Test. He doesn't have a conversation, he looks to see if something obviously agrees with him or if it appears to disagree, then vomits forth responses to keywords.

Eliza has broader depth than he does. He just has more volume per response.

Quote from: Spike;573709I'm telling you, man. MGuy would fail the Turning Test. He doesn't have a conversation, he looks to see if something obviously agrees with him or if it appears to disagree, then vomits forth responses to keywords.

Eliza has broader depth than he does. He just has more volume per response.

I have tried reason and humor, and it seems not to help.

Quote from: Planet Algol;573675I play & run oldschool D&D. It's not perfect. I used to try and houserule it into perfection, but I realized I was chasing a pipe dream. Now I just try to run a good game, intellectual exercises be damned.

That's my take as well. When I quit playing 3rd ed I went back to old editions of the game and started with OD&D, house ruling as I went, and I soon realized that there's a point at which you just lose the "spirit of the game" Gygax was talking about in the DMG. Since then, I just concentrate on running a good game and creating adventure materials and shit that works with it, not against it. Works wonders.

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

This right here is worth the entirety of this post to read. THis is what makes you seem more reasonable.

However you claiming I ignored you and your presentation of 1e is false. I haven't and at this point will never play 1e. Ever. It may be interesting as a history lesson to see how the game evolved over time but regardless of "why" the decisions were made I can see the results myself. And it's odd for you to peg me for openly admitting I know nnothing about those editions instead of pretending that I do. How do you want me to respond to you asserting "Things used to be better"? I could follow along and turn this into an edition war and make the flimsy claim "no 3e is the bestest ever" but I didn't. I don't know shit about 1e but there were people in that thread who did and who disagreed with your assertion. Why you would want me to participate in a discussion about the disparity between classes in a game I never played was and is baffling. Whatever merits 1e and prior don't have shit to do with what I was talking about.

When repeatedly prodded about how fighters don't have shit in 2e I was given something about NWPs and how fighters are strong and can push rocks. That's the defense I was given for my assertion.That fighters may or may not get skills and if they do get skills they may or may not cover the skills other classes get. Now when we got there I said but that's either pales in comparison to what a caster can logically do at high level or is something anybody can get. To that people continued to tell me that a fighter swings his sword the bestest and that's all he needs. When other 2e players brought up charmed monsters, raised dead, battle built clerics there was some yelling until the people who brought them up were silenced by the mob.

I brought up a simple scenario "Flying Fortress of Doom" a simple sample adventure that would be about mid level in scope for 3e (don't know how high that would be in 2e). I then showed how little the fighter could actually do in such an adventure (fight). I posited that the fighter should have something by virtue of his class that allows him to participate in more than that. People started talking about magic weapon allotment and how fighters can get magic stuff to allow them to fly. I said well if he is going to depend on magic anyway why not just make the magic a part of his class? That idea was shat on. So I said well why not just have him "get" magic stuff since he needs more than other class? That idea was equally unheard. By the rules of the posters here a fighter can only depend on equipment allotment or asking other characters in order to get things done. This is WHILE other classes (Cleric/Druid/Wizard) do not have to do the same.

Now 1e may or may not be different but this much is true in 2e and 3e. So maybe I missed the part where you said "that is a problem in those editions and it should be fixed but in1 e wizards can't do shit so it all evens out". Maybe you missed the post where I said I just think it's better for the game that fighters have something as awesome as other classes if he's going to be fighting alongside them at every level. Maybe you are truly more moderate than your posting has let on but I have not seen that.

Quote from: Spike;573709I'm telling you, man. MGuy would fail the Turning Test. He doesn't have a conversation, he looks to see if something obviously agrees with him or if it appears to disagree, then vomits forth responses to keywords.

Eliza has broader depth than he does. He just has more volume per response.

And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

Quote from: MGuy;573719And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

No. It's an example of how some of us feel about you, specifically.

You know, if someone goes through the expense and trouble of making a FLYING FORTRESS OF DOOM, it's because it would be extremely hard to breach, not to provide a fair/fun challenge for the whole party...

Quote from: MGuy;573719And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

"I acted like an idiot and they treated me like an idiot, so they think everyone that doesn't agree with them is an idiot."


:rolleyes:

Sorry dude, nice victim complex, but there are plenty of folks here who have posted dissenting opinions and not been treated like an idiot.  But you made your bed, and established yourself pretty firmly into the camp of someone who is very intellectually dishonest.  That's why people have been on your case, not because you like a different game then others.

Quote from: MGuy;573719And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

Indeed it is. It really causes them problems to be disagreed with. Simple insult is really their only response.

There's a couple of exceptions however.

Quote from: gleichman;573729Indeed it is. It really causes them problems to be disagreed with. Simple insult is really their only response.

There's a couple of exceptions however.

Oh the irony.   Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to show me where I am on record for saying that I change the rules mid game that make me a bad DM.

Are you ever going to back up your claims, or continue doing the same behavior that you're chastising?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;573725"I acted like an idiot and they treated me like an idiot, so they think everyone that doesn't agree with them is an idiot."


:rolleyes:

Sorry dude, nice victim complex, but there are plenty of folks here who have posted dissenting opinions and not been treated like an idiot.  But you made your bed, and established yourself pretty firmly into the camp of someone who is very intellectually dishonest.  That's why people have been on your case, not because you like a different game then others.

You know what peole peg me for being intellectually dishonest for? Shit I didn't say.
Since coming to this board all of my talking points have been reduced to attacking other people's play styles. Whenever I mention that I'm not doing that "I'm lying, back pedaling, being dishonest". Whenever I point out that people are being assshats they say I'm being an asshat. When a group of people decide that you are an enemy (for whatever reason) they have a penchant for seeing you in the worst light possible. You Sacro are particularly quick to dismiss whatever counters I have to your assertions as nonsense. Even when I go out of my way to point out how you used Entitlement when I said Empowerment, and I explained exactly the difference between what you were assuming I was talking about and what I was ACTUALLY talking about you STILL dismissed it. Even with the proof right there for you on the screen. So why should I assume that anything you say to me actually has relevance to what I'm saying or what else can I say to you when you're so intent on building strawmen to fight while the others on your side nod dumbly and cheer you on.

Quote from: MGuy;573737So why should I assume that anything you say to me actually has relevance to what I'm saying or what else can I say to you when you're so intent on building strawmen to fight while the others on your side nod dumbly and cheer you on.

Sacrosanct has long been on my ignore list for that type of behavior. I suggest putting him on yours. Add Marleycat and Declan MacManus and you'll cut the noise in half.

Sadly you can't add Benoist.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;573725"I acted like an idiot and they treated me like an idiot, so they think everyone that doesn't agree with them is an idiot."


:rolleyes:

Sorry dude, nice victim complex, but there are plenty of folks here who have posted dissenting opinions and not been treated like an idiot.  But you made your bed, and established yourself pretty firmly into the camp of someone who is very intellectually dishonest.  That's why people have been on your case, not because you like a different game then others.

I'd like to point out that my debut here came with a disagreement with Sanc, which was resolved and not pursued endlessly.  Why?  Because we both recognized when there wasn't any point to arguing over if doing more math slowed down gameplay.  And there wasn't any huge gangup on the new guy who was arguing with a regular, it played out and it was done.

So what do you think the difference was between my situation and yours?

I'm also realizing that a lot of "problems" to these guys are things I would just accept as elements of a game world.

Flying Fortress of Doom
- Can only by accessed by magic for thievish subterfuge.
Well I certainly hope that they built it trying to make it secure!

Yep, it would be a tough nut for the party to crack. However, I would never make it necessary for a party to assault a Flying Fortress of Doom. If the party wants to rob it, or steal it, or slay it's Jerkwad captain, but I'd never say to the players "Your mission, if you chose to not repudiate all the hard work your suffering DM has put into the statblocks, is to defeat the Flying Fortress of Doom and it's Flying Archers."

There are probably multiple flying fortresses in the worlds of my D&D game, heck now that I think of it the Githyanki of the Himalayas probably have some funky ones, but I would never lay some rails pointing directly at one.

Behir in a Mountain Pass
- So there's this Behir guarding a mountain pass and it's undefeatable (AD&D Behir's are a tough!)
Well I certainly hope that a lightning spitting Kaiju would be something that people wouldn't count on being able to kill!

I'm thinking that things being inaccessible due to "undefeatable" monsters is a pretty damn common trope in fantasy & legend. On paper "normal" dudes can't take them and that's party of what makes them Badass Fucking Monsters.

"Nobody can slay the Behir of the Mountain Pass!"
"The Pass of Lightning Spitting Death! Don't go there, you will die!"

And that makes it all the more awesome when some Perseus/Jack the Giant Killer style dude manages to somehow slay it.

I have no problem having "undeafeatable" monsters in the world; if you want to swim down to R'yleh and try to rob Cthulhu guess what will likely occur... I won't say to the players "YOU MUST GET PAST THE BEHIR OF THE MOUNTAIN PASS OR YOU ARE LOSERS FOR MISSING A TIME LIMIT"; they choose their adventures, not I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get that there's this idea that elements of the campaign world should be "Disney Lands" fungineered to serve as fair challenges for appropriately levelled parties, but I don't see the gameworld as a gameboard in the least.

I think a lot is lost when you see a campaign milieu as a series of engineered challenges as opposed to a cold, hard sandbox.

Quote from: gleichman;573746Sacrosanct has long been on my ignore list for that type of behavior. I suggest putting him on yours. Add Marleycat and Declan MacManus and you'll cut the noise in half.

Sadly you can't add Benoist.

Why would you ignore anyone instead of having a reasonable discussion with them?

Sure, we all get angry at times, but Ignore seems a bit over the top to me.

For the record gleichman, we may disagree a lot, but I do value the fact you challenge my opinions and make me think.

McGuy reminds me of a less sophisticated bersion of SeanChai.

Upon further reflection on my previous post, I'm wondering if the "generation gap"/"challenge gap" may be that for old-guard D&D the D&D world was based on myth and fantasy fiction whereas to the new-guard the D&D world was based on post-D&D games.

From a world where things "just are" to a world where things are "designed for play."

Quote from: Bill;573755Why would you ignore anyone instead of having a reasonable discussion with them?

It's impossible to have a reason discussion with the people I listed, you either agree with them or you are subhuman in their minds.

You aren't them however, and we're having a reasonable discussion. We likely won't agree. But that's actually not important.

Quote from: Planet Algol;573761Upon further reflection on my previous post, I'm wondering if the "generation gap"/"challenge gap" may be that for old-guard D&D the D&D world was based on myth and fantasy fiction whereas to the new-guard the D&D world was based on post-D&D games.

From a world where things "just are" to a world where things are "designed for play."

I see what you are trying to say, but I think that the way you put it runs contrary to some of the stuff I've learned, like the fact that the game in Lake Geneva was very much a game and that, as Mike Mornard puts it, they were mostly "making shit up they thought would be fun." D&D itself is an amalgam of lots of different influences and cool readings (Conan, John Carter, HPL etc) and movies (Sinbad, the Adventures of Robin Hood, etc etc) watched by the Gygax family that just sedimented at the game table and the minds of its participants to make "D&D" what it is.

I'm not saying that what you observe is wrong. Just that construing it to mean that there was no "created to play" dimension to the game at its inception is incorrect. There is something to what you say... but it's not a strict "1st versus 3rd person role playing" thing. It's more complex... or simple than that, in fact. I just can't quite put the finger on it right this moment. Maybe it's that the game was a vehicle to fantasy and enchantment, as Rob Kuntz would put it, to the moment of wonder and entertainment itself as experienced through play, whereas now the game itself, the intricacies of its rules and identity itself, is the subject of play.

Hm. Stuff to think about.

Meh.  Discussion was at an ebb around here for a bit before it became "Fighter vs Wizard vs Bone Devil vs Assholes" season.  The pendulum swings.

I 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.

Y'all are making this place depressing to browse.

Quote from: Bill;573755Why would you ignore anyone instead of having a reasonable discussion with them?

Sure, we all get angry at times, but Ignore seems a bit over the top to me.

For the record gleichman, we may disagree a lot, but I do value the fact you challenge my opinions and make me think.

Tried to engage with Benoist and Storm. Benoist straight up doesn't care and Storm... I could write an essay on how he's fucked up. Take your pick logic, math, reading comprehension, game design, etc.

Ben, oh I agree I'm not spot on here, I'm just trying to condense some inchoate thoughts.

Certainly the "dungeon itself" was an explicitly gameboard structure, with level appropriate levels and all that jazz.

...but even that funhouse game dungeon could have features that aren't "fair", "balanced", "gameable" or even make sense.

For example, I try to have a fair amount of magic thrones, pools, fountains, etc. in my megadungeon that have the capability of, through random chance, radically changing a characters's abilities. You may become a strongman or a retard or be teleported to another level or anything else. Why? Because it's a inscrutable magic feature that has total disregard for fairness AND it's a game changer that can play play more fun/easy/difficult/?!?!?!, a wild card.

I 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?

Quote from: MGuy;573773Tried to engage with Benoist

Actually no, you haven't.

Quote from: MGuy;573773Tried to engage with Benoist and Storm. Benoist straight up doesn't care and Storm... I could write an essay on how he's fucked up. Take your pick logic, math, reading comprehension, game design, etc.

Perhaps you just rubbed each other the wrong way and can patch things up and start over?

Quote from: Planet Algol;573776Maybe the culture change between old-guard and new-guard is from embracing chaos to embracing predictability?

There's been a definite shift in what is construed as fairness between the participants of the game, and thus what constitutes a fair obstacle or how the rules play into the equation of actual play. The inclusion of chaotic and/or humorous elements in the game, the role that mathematical equality plays, if any, in those scenarios, and the predeterminism of the rules' design play into that picture. There is a good column written by Rob Kuntz about it ... here, have a read (the comments are worth reading too). (http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.ca/2009/03/up-on-tree-stump-2.html)

Quote from: Rob KuntzThe actual thought that someone might summarize my commentary as suggesting that either EGG or myself were abusive DMing actually made me laugh real hard, thanks!

This is where the true division lies between what people perceive through rules and by implementing them on different levels and at different times.

The condensed version is stated:

"His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand..."

This is to make it utterly clear that this is how we (players and DMs) perceived this. The fairness of DMs is never a question, for in doing so you must honor the neutrality of the station maintained. That's part of the game, just as any other games has rules sets; and we are definitely dealing with many Masters here of not only games design, history, game theory and so forth, but mature adults (wel,, I as on my way with all the guys coaxing/coaching, and at a frenetic pace and speed). We are here talking about some of the best game designers of the time--Gygax, Mike Carr, Arneson, Don Lowry, Mike Reese, Leon Tucker, Jeff Perren, and the list goes on.

So, No, there was no abuse, but the idea that we were still opponents, well, that is consistent in all games, and was no different then. I really do not see where the other line of thought ever entered into the picture, really, as a DM, though not adversarial, still role-plays adversarial NPCs/Monsters (and if good, to their fullest), and that through the conduit of his or her mind, as he or she, fortunately, can't afford a brain transplant, let's say, to that of an ORC, at mid-point of the adventure... Gary being a mighty fine opponent only transferred his toughness into those encounters and they were played smartly and without reserve, just as he had done on the tabletop or sand table :)

Quote from: Bill;573779Perhaps you just rubbed each other the wrong way and can patch things up and start over?

With Ben? I'll pass. I highly doubt he will say anything I want to read. With Storm, I did, though I admit in the thread I created where I engaged him again, upon rereading, I ended up being more hostile toward Storm than I should have since i should have approached him as if we had no history but I didn't. I doubt though at this point that it'll do anythinng but if I can talk to kaelik regularly anything is possible.

Quote from: Benoist;573786There's been a definite shift in what is construed as fairness between the participants of the game, and thus what constitutes a fair obstacle or how the rules play into the equation of actual play. The inclusion of chaotic and/or humorous elements in the game, the role that mathematical equality plays, if any, in those scenarios, and the predeterminism of the rules' design play into that picture. There is a good column written by Rob Kuntz about it ... here, have a read (the comments are worth reading too). (http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.ca/2009/03/up-on-tree-stump-2.html)

I checked out that link, some good stuff there.

Man, I wish Rob K. would have stayed the course instead of going full-Gleichman.

Quote from: MGuy;573790With Ben? I'll pass.

The day you are willing to have a discussion in good faith, I'll listen to you.
All you have to do is try me. But you can't fake it. I'll know.

EDIT: Denner changed to "Denner Invader" at Kaelik's request.

My main problem with the "Denner Invaders" arguments was they toss off casual one-liners all the time like...
"fighters are useless after 4th level"
"Charm Monster makes all fighters worthless in a party"
etc...
a lot of times these statements aren't even the primary point of the post, they just get tossed in as if they were known and accepted facts (which at the Den, they are).  I forget what you call it, but it's a tactic in Forensic Debate (as in HS/college debate) where tangential contentions are made obfuscated by the main point or structure of the sentence.  Why? Because any point not answered is automatically judged for the contender.  That annoying type of speech isn't limited to the Den or to 3e discussion boards, but the Den seems to have it as a primary means of sentence structure.

When you make those tangential arguments, and those arguments are accepted without proof, then you get yourself a nice echo-chamber and start producing groupthink.

Another big problem with some of the "Denner Invaders" inability to let stand their own arguments about 3e.  It's not enough that this is the case in 3e.  Oh no.  "All the earlier versions had the problem too.  I don't know anything about those earlier editions, but they had the same problem...Frank (or whoever) told me."
BMX? Same problem in 1e.
Build? Same culture in 1e.
Any argument made against mine I feel I need to validate by pretending it was always that way? Same problem in 1e.

If the response to
"0e,1e,2e didn't have that problem." Was...
"Oh really?  Thanks Grandpa. Maybe you want to start a thread about that then, because this one is about 3e, where the problem fucking occurs."
They would have fit right in.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573809Another big problem is the inability to let stand their own arguments about 3e.  It's not enough that this is the case in 3e.  Oh no.  "All the earlier versions had the problem too.  I don't know anything about those earlier editions, but they had the same problem...Frank (or whoever) told me."
BMX? Same problem in 1e.
Build? Same culture in 1e.
Any argument made against mine I feel I need to validate by pretending it was always that way? Same problem in 1e.

If the Denners response to
"0e,1e,2e didn't have that problem." Was...
"Oh really?  Thanks Grandpa. Maybe you want to start a thread about that then, because this one is about 3e, where the problem fucking occurs."
They would have fit right in.

So 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?

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?

Are you suggesting in the WvF thread you never made any claims about the problem in earlier editions?

or are you just crying Foul about the term "Denner" in general.

Because there may be 150,000 posters on TGD, but if the 5 that come here all exhibit the same behavior then "Denners" is a decent term a posteriori.  However, for those other 149,995 TGD posters, I'll change Denner to Denner Invader. ;)

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?

You had almost interested until you said I might follow whatever Stormie said.  Try again because this is entertaining, I am done being mice.

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?

You had almost had me interested until you said I might follow whatever Stormie said.  Try again because this is entertaining, I am done being mice/nice.  I guess my phone stole my hat. What a bitch. :)

They couldn't invade my cunt why would you think that they could invade something important?  Like Marleycat's actual Dnd game? Understand my version of Dnd may suck but it's mine.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573816Are you suggesting in the WvF thread you never made any claims about the problem in earlier editions?

Yes. I am saying that in the WvF thread I didn't make claims about the problems in earlier editions.

You certainly can't point to any instance in which I was making an argument about 3e, and then someone said "not in my 1e" and I responded that X was also true in 1e.

I did say that according to other people's posts, 2e + Whatever the Divine Book Was Called could result in Clerics outfighting fighters, but I also specified that I wouldn't know, because I never used that book playing 2e.

Quote from: Kaelik;573831You certainly can't point to any instance in which I was making an argument about 3e, and then someone said "not in my 1e" and I responded that X was also true in 1e.

Ok, then, that charge changed to reflect some not all.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573809Another big problem with some of the "Denner Invaders" inability to let stand their own arguments about 3e.  It's not enough that this is the case in 3e.  Oh no.  "All the earlier versions had the problem too.  I don't know anything about those earlier editions, but they had the same problem...Frank (or whoever) told me."
BMX? Same problem in 1e.
Build? Same culture in 1e.
Any argument made against mine I feel I need to validate by pretending it was always that way? Same problem in 1e.

If the response to
"0e,1e,2e didn't have that problem." Was...
"Oh really?  Thanks Grandpa. Maybe you want to start a thread about that then, because this one is about 3e, where the problem fucking occurs."
They would have fit right in.

I've always called this the "Schrödinger's edition".

It seems that 3e and 4e are both "The same as older editions and how dare you suggest that they changed the game in major ways!" and "totally better in every way and not broken".

Both lines are often argued by the same people at the same time.

Quote from: Piestrio;573844I've always called this the "Schrödinger's edition".

It seems that 3e and 4e are both "The same as older editions and how dare you suggest that they changed the game in major ways!" and "totally better in every way and not broken".

Both lines are often argued by the same people at the same time.

I don't think that this is an accurate description for the Den.  The regulars there hate 4th Edition with a passion.

Quote from: MGuy;573737You know what peole peg me for being intellectually dishonest for? Shit I didn't say.
Since coming to this board all of my talking points have been reduced to attacking other people's play styles. Whenever I mention that I'm not doing that "I'm lying, back pedaling, being dishonest". Whenever I point out that people are being assshats they say I'm being an asshat. When a group of people decide that you are an enemy (for whatever reason) they have a penchant for seeing you in the worst light possible. You Sacro are particularly quick to dismiss whatever counters I have to your assertions as nonsense. Even when I go out of my way to point out how you used Entitlement when I said Empowerment, and I explained exactly the difference between what you were assuming I was talking about and what I was ACTUALLY talking about you STILL dismissed it. Even with the proof right there for you on the screen. So why should I assume that anything you say to me actually has relevance to what I'm saying or what else can I say to you when you're so intent on building strawmen to fight while the others on your side nod dumbly and cheer you on.

No wonder why you get so much shit.  Because when facts stare at you right in the face, you refuse to acknowledge them.

Let's just recap the above shall we?

I said "empowerment" several hours before you said empowerment literally using the exact same words I used when I said "entitlement" later.  I had then also said I mixed up those words, but since I had already said empowerment earlier and before your post, that your post was still wrong.  Even above, you still refuse to acknowledge that I addressed empowerment before you proceeded to repeat incorrect information.

And then the beauty of it all is that literally minutes after I said all you do is strawmen, red herrings, and make claims that you have no idea of the factuality of, you proceeded to make a post saying how AD&D DMs sucked and were out to get players.

When you had never played the game.

Within minutes you did the exact thing I just accused you of.  At least you made it easy in that I didn't need to search for a quote of you being a disingenuous dick because you provided one within moments.

But I suspect that when faced with these objective facts, you're going to yet again ignore it and act like you're the victim.  This is why I have no respect for you.  You have zero integrity and rather than admit any one of your continuous mistakes, you always try to shift that it's someone being mean to you.

Grow a pair dude.

Thought provoked by the Denner invasion?

I give a lot more benefit of the doubt to 4e fans, even 4vengers.  Christ, if these kind of people are what 4e fans have had to deal with since 4e came out, no wonder they're a bunch of angry people with a loathing for 3e.  I would too if subject to Denners for several years.

Quote from: MGuy;573715This right here is worth the entirety of this post to read. THis is what makes you seem more reasonable.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: MGuy;573715However you claiming I ignored you and your presentation of 1e is false.

I linked your exact reply to me. I'll leave it to others to decided how that came off.

Quote from: MGuy;573715I haven't and at this point will never play 1e. Ever.

I'm not asking you to. Ever.

Quote from: MGuy;573715It may be interesting as a history lesson to see how the game evolved over time but regardless of "why" the decisions were made I can see the results myself.

Looking at 3e and saying that you "see the results" means you see nothing.

As somone with a stated interest in game design, perhaps I just expect you to be more curious about how D&D changed over time. And then I think, Mike Mearls, and I realize that curiosity and understanding have nothing to do with design.

Quote from: MGuy;573715And it's odd for you to peg me for openly admitting I know nnothing about those editions instead of pretending that I do. How do you want me to respond to you asserting "Things used to be better"?

I didn't say things used to be better - I said that problems with 3e (and really going back to later 2e) developed as a reaction to things some gamers didn't like about 1e. You can see that whole process in microcosm in the blog posts I linked from B/X Blackrazor: magic-users are too fragile as adventurers, they don't contribute enough to combat, they don't have any abilities outside of casting spells (!).

If you and the Den-symps argue that the 3e fighter is lackluster and I say, the 1e fighter didn't have that problem and here's why, I'm not arguing that 1e is "better." I'm trying to explain what I see as the design choices which created or exacerbated the problems that you, me, and the Den-symps all agree are present in 3e.

Truly, the only time I give a shit about what you play and why is when you and I are sitting at the same table. If you want to make a better game out of, or in place of, 3e, awesome, I wish you luck, here's a couple of things you may want to consider, and godspeed.

But please, stop the bullshit about me telling you what's better or what you should play.

Quote from: MGuy;573715I don't know shit about 1e but there were people in that thread who did and who disagreed with your assertion.

There are people in those threads who disagree about the color of the sky on a clear day at high noon.

Disagreeing is one thing; making a credible refutation is another. Give me two links to posts from people who you think refuted my argument about 1e magic-users and 3e wizards.

Quote from: MGuy;573715Why you would want me to participate in a discussion about the disparity between classes in a game I never played was and is baffling.

I was trying to help you understand. I believe you sincerely want to solve a problem you've identified, and I was - and still am - trying to help you find the tools to fix it.

Quote from: MGuy;573715Whatever merits 1e and prior don't have shit to do with what I was talking about.

Yeah, they really do.

Quote from: MGuy;573715When repeatedly prodded about how fighters don't have shit in 2e I was given something about NWPs and how fighters are strong and can push rocks. That's the defense I was given for my assertion.That fighters may or may not get skills and if they do get skills they may or may not cover the skills other classes get.

I can't say anything about 2e 'cause I never played it.

I did point out that later 1e fighters actually have more proficiencies than magic-users - this was replaced in 3e by reducing skill points but providing more feats, feats which often duplicated class abilities from earlier editions, so that the fighter once again lost ground vis-a-vis the wizard.

More importantly, 1e fighters have better saves, more hit points, more attacks (and their attacks tend to go first more often), and abilities which aren't resource-limited like magic-users.

Can you honestly say that knowing this has no bearing whatsoever on trying to fix the 3e fighter?

Quote from: MGuy;573715Now when we got there I said but that's either pales in comparison to what a caster can logically do at high level or is something anybody can get. To that people continued to tell me that a fighter swings his sword the bestest and that's all he needs. When other 2e players brought up charmed monsters, raised dead, battle built clerics there was some yelling until the people who brought them up were silenced by the mob.

A charmed frost giant who can't enter a dungeon. An undead 'army' of fourteen skeletons. 3e clerics, which are just as borked as 3e wizards, arguably even more so - as I said in an earlier post, if there's a 1e class that's overpowered, it's the cleric, and in 3e the wizard started getting some of the same advantages as the cleric, like bonus spells for a high attribute score.

Again, arguments aren't automatically credible. You have to read them with a critical eye.

Quote from: MGuy;573715I brought up a simple scenario "Flying Fortress of Doom" . . .

I tuned out most of the contrived examples being thrown back and forth, so I can't comment on that.

Quote from: MGuy;573715I posited that the fighter should have something by virtue of his class that allows him to participate in more than that. People started talking about magic weapon allotment and how fighters can get magic stuff to allow them to fly. I said well if he is going to depend on magic anyway why not just make the magic a part of his class? That idea was shat on. So I said well why not just have him "get" magic stuff since he needs more than other class? That idea was equally unheard. By the rules of the posters here a fighter can only depend on equipment allotment or asking other characters in order to get things done. This is WHILE other classes (Cleric/Druid/Wizard) do not have to do the same.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your solution to the problem you've identified.

That said, it's not a solution I would ever implement in any D&D game I'd run, not because it's bad or wrong, but because I don't care for the setting it implies. It's not a game I'd be interested in playing or running for that reason, and that reason alone.

Quote from: MGuy;573715Maybe you missed the post where I said I just think it's better for the game that fighters have something as awesome as other classes if he's going to be fighting alongside them at every level.

Do you understand that your idea of "better" and "awesome" are not universal?

Huh, I missed an invasion?  Weird, is there a cliff's notes or something?  I already read this entire thread and I don't want to read more unless it's really, really funny.

But geeze, Denners?  Were all the good names taken or something?

Also, someone asked why Brian Gleichman posts here and while I wouldn't dare put words in his mouth I will speculate.

He posts here because he'd be banned anywhere else if he spoke his mind as directly as he does.  Sure he can say we have a group think problem here, but I can't think of another place where you can just sit around all day attacking people without getting moderated these days.

Personally I'd rather hear what people actually think that what they figure they're allowed to say, so, more power to him.

Quote from: David Johansen;573862He posts here because he'd be banned anywhere else if he spoke his mind as directly as he does.

I wouldn't need to speak my mind as directly elsewhere. They've already banned the type of people that sparks that response in me.

Quote from: David Johansen;573862But geeze, Denners?  Were all the good names taken or something?

Well since it is not our name for ourselves, and is just a mocking name invented here, it makes sense that it would suck.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;573856I'm not asking you to. Ever.

M'k.

QuoteLooking at 3e and saying that you "see the results" means you see nothing.

I was more saying "This is how things are". People's capacity to change the rules so that X isn't X and therefore doesn't make Y but instead makes not Y, defeats the purpose of the entire point I was trying to make. If I'm speaking on a specific subject and you chime in by saying this other thing is different it doesn't change how things are now. I don't know what 1E was like, you showing me and telling me this is all an overreaction, etc doesn't actually change any of the points I made, make, or will make in the future about it.

QuoteAs somone with a stated interest in game design, perhaps I just expect you to be more curious about how D&D changed over time. And then I think, Mike Mearls, and I realize that curiosity and understanding have nothing to do with design.

It is interesting but consider the fact that I had been spending my time arguing not about why 3e is the way it is but of the power disparity between the fighter class (and by extension other non maical classes) and wizard class (and by extension other similar classes). Could you not see that I was spendin my time proving that the issue existed at all? What relevance does how things used to be have when I'm having trouble getting through to these people that a problem exists at all and why it actually is an issue in 3e and from what I can tell the top levels (apparently) of 2e.

QuoteI didn't say things used to be better - I said that problems with 3e (and really going back to later 2e) developed as a reaction to things some gamers didn't like about 1e. You can see that whole process in microcosm in the blog posts I linked from B/X Blackrazor: magic-users are too fragile as adventurers, they don't contribute enough to combat, they don't have any abilities outside of casting spells (!).

I noted your post on that and had nothing to say becasue again, I never played the system, what am I goin to weigh in on?

QuoteIf you and the Den-symps argue that the 3e fighter is lackluster and I say, the 1e fighter didn't have that problem and here's why, I'm not arguing that 1e is "better." I'm trying to explain what I see as the design choices which created or exacerbated the problems that you, me, and the Den-symps all agree are present in 3e.

This I addressed earlier but I must say again that while that's interesting it doesn't help me "show" that the problem exists. Also again, you post what happens in 1E and tell me it's different. The problem also doesn't occur in 4e either BECAUSE of the over reaction to 3e but that doesn't have anything to do with the points I was making.

QuoteBut please, stop the bullshit about me telling you what's better or what you should play.

Black V I don't really have anything against you or what you said. I find it larely irrelevant to the points I was making and I can at best say that I confused your intent for posting earlier edition stuff again after I already told you I know nothing of it.

QuoteDisagreeing is one thing; making a credible refutation is another. Give me two links to posts from people who you think refuted my argument about 1e magic-users and 3e wizards.

I can't support people's arguments about how 1e works. Even if I were to dig them up (I'm not) where would I go from there? Watch you dismantle their statements?

QuoteI was trying to help you understand. I believe you sincerely want to solve a problem you've identified, and I was - and still am - trying to help you find the tools to fix it.

Ok. I have nothing against that but have you seen the thread I made that actually lays out some of my ideas?

QuoteCan you honestly say that knowing this has no bearing whatsoever on trying to fix the 3e fighter?

Yes. It has some common sense solutions like giving the "fighter" more stuff to do and draws back casters quite a bit so they aren't just making a mess of things. This is how I have already determined that I will approach the problem.

QuoteA charmed frost giant who can't enter a dungeon. An undead 'army' of fourteen skeletons. 3e clerics, which are just as borked as 3e wizards, arguably even more so - as I said in an earlier post, if there's a 1e class that's overpowered, it's the cleric, and in 3e the wizard started getting some of the same advantages as the cleric, like bonus spells for a high attribute score.

Clerics in 3e are about as if not just as powerful as wizards in 3e.

QuoteThere's absolutely nothing wrong with your solution to the problem you've identified.

That said, it's not a solution I would ever implement in any D&D game I'd run, not because it's bad or wrong, but because I don't care for the setting it implies. It's not a game I'd be interested in playing or running for that reason, and that reason alone.

That's fair. That's the same note I ended on with Brendan.

QuoteDo you understand that your idea of "better" and "awesome" are not universal?

Then let me clarify (as I had in another thread) Fighter can kill 4 dudes with a well placed grenade weapon or in short order with his sword vs a fireball from a wizard = fair. A wizard can breathe underwater vs A fighter can hold his breath unde water and swim surprisingly fast = fair.

A wizard ca create a magic house in another dimension practically unreachable by any mundane danger and most magical ones v a fighter who can build a fortress and be scry + raped while inside of it = not fair. A wizard can rewrite a person's personal memory in seconds and devour any dreams he might have to remind him of his past life v a fighter who's best diplomacy attempt can maybe get the king to let him bed his daughter after a quest or some great deed = not fair.

The former is ok because while the wizard's feats are fantastic they don't totally leave what the fihter can do in the dust. The problem arises when you realize that higher level games act more like the latter and that's without getting into plane hopping shennanigans. The degree of power between the fihter and the wizard in the second one is too big to be good for the game.

Quote from: Kaelik;573864Well since it is not our name for ourselves, and is just a mocking name invented here, it makes sense that it would suck.

meh, it doesn't even cut it as mockery.

Quote from: gleichman;573863I wouldn't need to speak my mind as directly elsewhere. They've already banned the type of people that sparks that response in me.

Ah sorry, I mistook you for the Brian Gleichman who got in nasty flame wars and swore off the internet forever and took his game rules off line.  Really it's a bit surprising that he didn't coin the phrase "Ban me motherfuckers! first."  But if I've mistook you for someone else, then I'm truly sorry.

That said, it does return us to the question of why you aren't posting elsewhere.

Quote from: David Johansen;573870Ah sorry, I mistook you for the Brian Gleichman who got in nasty flame wars and swore off the internet forever

Correction, I sworn off RPGNet (not the Internet) when it started moderation, moderation geared towards protection the Forge and choking off anyone speaking against GNS.

Also the traffic volume was getting too high for me, I ran out of the time needed to keep track of it- and that remains the case.

Quote from: David Johansen;573870and took his game rules off line.

It's still offline. But the reason for that is completely different.

Quote from: David Johansen;573870That said, it does return us to the question of why you aren't posting elsewhere.

Im not interested in forums focused on single systems (HERO Boards, ENWorld, etc.). I'm unaware of any other general RPG gaming site.

Plus there are people here that I like to read.

For me, this episode reminded me that I really ought to reacquire old favorites: Rolemaster 2nd Ed./MERP 2nd Ed. (because I use them together), Palladium Fantasy and Twilight 2000.  (Also, my old Classic Traveller stuff is falling apart; time for buying the reprints.)

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;573880For me, this episode reminded me that I really ought to reacquire old favorites: Rolemaster 2nd Ed./MERP 2nd Ed. (because I use them together), Palladium Fantasy and Twilight 2000.  (Also, my old Classic Traveller stuff is falling apart; time for buying the reprints.)

So...got any ideas for using things from Rolemaster/MERP with Palladium?
Dodgy Rifts/Shadow World conversions maybe?

(I know that's not what you said you were doing in your post, but the two do strike me as going together somehow).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;573885So...got any ideas for using things from Rolemaster/MERP with Palladium?
Dodgy Rifts/Shadow World conversions maybe?

(I know that's not what you said you were doing in your post, but the two do strike me as going together somehow).

Not offhand, but worthy of a spin-off thread.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;573888Not offhand, but worthy of a spin-off thread.

OK split off.... :)

Quote from: Benoist;573796The day you are willing to have a discussion in good faith, I'll listen to you.
All you have to do is try me. But you can't fake it. I'll know.

That's fact, try him, you may be pleasantly surprised.  That's just my serious casual gamer girl experience. Take it as you will at your own risk. He is very open but opinionated and suffers no fools. Much like myself in fact.  But he is smarter than me. So fair warning. :)

Continuing with my OP, perhaps a bit less verbose this time:

Having 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.

Observe: In any reasonably realistic modern or futuristic RPG (let's say: Shadowrun), you can build a relatively simple, not to terribly dangerous character and give him a sniper rifle. If you put this NPC (PCs can do this to, but the GM usually fucks with them and makes it less effective) on a high building some distance from where the characters will be... in other words a reasonably optimal position, the Sniper can easily kill at least one Player Character, and if they don't respond properly, might even kill the group.

Obviously: SNipers are broken, yes? They break the game.

Of course, if you disallow snipers, then the game suddenly feels a lot less realistic, like its grounded in an entirely different, slightly sillier universe than our own.

In real life there are any number of factors that prevent everyone from lugging around sniper rifles and just setting up shop, not least of which is that quite often the intended target won't actually co-operate by showing up where you want him to be.  

And of course, proportional responses. Sure you just killed Joe Snuffy without a fight, but the forces of law and order really don't like feeling under the crosshairs, and they got shit like helicopters and... get this... more snipers.


In fantasy, of course, there are more options than just sniper rifles.

By way of illustration: Kaelik recently challenged me to a series of battles against his choice of monsters. What were they? Four devils and an earth elemental.

Why four devils? Why no demons? Why no undead?

Ah. You see, now I know: See in Darkness.  

This (su) power is unique to devils, and in what appears to be a common interpretation of the power, it utterly negates the fact that Devils have darkvision... they simply don't experience darkness at all!

Well: that's a perfectly good interpretation, when I think about it. Sure. It does mean that the writers/editors of the Monster Manual were a bit... lacking in that department, but its something reasonable for fantasy devils to do.

But in the Den hands, its a sniper rifle.  See, other than Drow (which no one sensible plays because their LA is fucking gimp-tastic.. even a noob player will quickly realize that having black skin and sexy artwork to look at isn't worth playing a five hit point geek in a fifty hit point game!), there is no practical way to exceed 60' of dark vision. And even in teh case of Drow, it hardly matters, because the Devil can simply wait 200 feet away and still see what the drow can't.

Of course, unlike a sniper rifle Seeing in the Dark isn't quite that powerful.  But its obviously Kaelik's favorite tactic to prove his point.

MGuy, in his Thunderdome, loves him some solid fog, and in the WvF thread. Why not? Its pretty much cut and dried, a spell that can't be resisted (well, except by freedom of movement which is another of those insanely expensive effects to buy for what it actually does).  So he can now pin down a character and annoy it to death for x number of rounds.

Now, I wouldn't actually mention it, except that they use this handful of untoppable tactics like a hammer to 'prove' that an entire game is broken.  

Well, really?  I mean, if in my Shadowrun game I put a bunch of two-bit hoods on every rooftop with sniper rifles, it obviously makes the game unplayable. Simply saying that 'I'm playing the NPC's smart' is a cop out.

If you only pull monsters that have an impossible to beat trick and you design your encounters to hammer that trick home (such as having dungeons with 100-200 foot straight corridors and no light...) every time that doesn't make the game broken, it means you are a shitty DM.  

I go back to the comment from Listen up you Primative Screwheads. Its about misbehaving players, but it shows why this sort of attitude from DMs is wrongheaded.

Quote from: LuYPSHHe doesn't scare me. He makes a power character, I drop an elephant on it.  He makes a bigger and meaner character, I use a heavier elephant. I got lots o' elephants

This corresponds to my second observation.  Both Kaelik and MGuy want to demonstrate how much better their perspective is, which is an understandable trait, so both agreed to a Thunderdome arena fight, where they could strut their stuff.

Both insist, however, in hiding every single thing they do: Assymetrical information.  Neither of their opponents (Myself and Panzerkraken) have... to the best of my knowledge hidden anything.

Kaelik, certainly, is on record for stating he is afraid I'll metagame and somehow throw off his TPK monster. He's as much as accused me of already doing so openly.

Allow me to suggest that if your concept only works with absolute control of the battlefield and information, then maybe its not as overpowered as you think.  In MGuy's case, its even less excuseable: At least Kaelik can claim that GM's do this all the time. MGuy is, essentially, in a PvP fight where only one player is openly announcing his actions.

Aside from the obsessive need to stack the deck in their favor, when by their own arguments the deck is pre-stacked anyway, it shows a fundamental lack of comprehension of the PURPOSE of the challenges.  If my party wanders around aimlessly for a few more days worth of posts before his Devil finally attacks, and all anyone sees is DeadDM announcing that a surprise round had occured and the wizard was dead... it is impossible for me, or for that matter the members of this site to actually tell what happened.

Posting 'after the fact' justifications is a poor sop for this obfuscation.


Personally? I'm amused. I am about 90% sure of what Kaelic is planning, and I don't care.

I'm imagining this powerful devil hiding from these hapless fools in his new lair while he spends an hour or more (seriously, have you READ how slowly I'm progressing?) teleporting everywhere they are not and blocking off escape routes with walls of ice for, essentially, no real advantage.

At some point he still has to engage the party. At some point there will be a check to see if anyone is surprised, and another for initiative, and then there will be a fight. Then, I presume, he'll teleport some more.

At this point I'm reasonably certain that Kaelik has given up on actually winning his TPK challenge and is trying to bore me to death. Two real time days I've been tromping through that dungeon.  I've made three or four real offers to speed up to the point where he ambushes me, just to get it over with.  I think, at this point, he'd rather I quit so he can declare victory without actually having to produce anything.


But I've already gone on longer than I'd like. Since I've tried to make it a point to highlight things I've actually learned from The Invasion, there is this:

When the game designers of 3E sat down and made up monsters they presumably had ideas of how those monsters worked.  Bone Devils have a lot of melee capabilities and some good 'horror monster' special abilities (Invisibility, poison, etc).

What they didn't consider was that some people would read things like 'Teleport at will' and assume that implied a different sort of monster, one that fights, I'm guessing, like nightcrawler from the X-men, or uses invisibility constantly (there are monsters for that called Invisible Stalkers) and that by NOT using those "At Will" powers every single round they were somehow 'doing it wrong'.

Of course, we already knew they sorta failed in thinking things through when they put in the CR system but let monsters keep the ability to summon other monsters.... since we were on the topic of Devils anyway.  

I dunno, I didn't say it was a deep thought.

Quote from: Spike;574082Personally? I'm amused. I am about 90% sure of what Kaelic is planning, and I don't care.

Just bring a single character, equip a necklace of adaptation and a few packs of dust of sneezing & choking. Let devils surround you, drop the dust on your position and clean up the mess at your leisure. They will be out of action for 2-20 rounds save or no save. :p

I too was unaware there was an invasion going on, and just happen to be new here as well.  But, I do want to say...

I have observed some of the very best 'edition warring' in my entire life right here on this site.  It is possible to learn a LOT about the entire game of D&D by watching and participating in these discussions.

So while some of the 'bully club' may not be enjoying it, some of us have benefited from it none the less.

Quote from: Spike;574082By way of illustration: Kaelik recently challenged me to a series of battles against his choice of monsters. What were they? Four devils and an earth elemental.

Why four devils? Why no demons? Why no undead?

Ah. You see, now I know: See in Darkness.

I offered you 2 Demons, 2 Devils, and an Earth Elemental. I'd also offer you the Slaad, but those aren't SRD, only in printed books.

At least if you are going to make long diatribes, get the facts right.

Vrocks don't have See in Darkness, but I bet I could still TPK your party with one.

Spike you cannot be fuckin' serious with this shit right? Are you shitting me? YOU are bitching about the fact that I hid my moves and only will reveal them afterward? What information in my battle was especially necessary for me to reveal? What advantage have I gained by knowing what I knew? You know what you actually missed in those empty turns? Me casting and concentrating on Silent Image. That's all you fuckin' missed me doing. Silent Image, closing in for a few rounds. That sure would've changed things. That sure stacked the deck for me alright.

You know how I could've really stacked the deck? Getting a cohort, Planar Binding, Magic Item shennanigans, Scry + Die, you know typical cheap tactics. Instead I just got a bunch of shit that would be usable in any number of situations (you know the kind of shit that anyone with half a brain would do as a soloing wizard). I didn't CharOp, I didn't just do the typical powergaming wizard. I played a standard conjurer that selected some common sense spells. I find it hilarious that Solid Fog being the second spell I cast means I "lurv" it. It is useful in a lot of situations and doesn't actually kill. What I do lurv is conjuring which is why my fiendish dire bats are going to eat his delicious good aligned mount up.

Quote from: MGuy;573585Stones 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).

"Sure, I was an asshole; but everyone else did it first and I was right anyway!"

Quote from: MGuy;573719And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

Quote from: Benoist;573720No. It's an example of how some of us feel about you, specifically.

Yeah, theRPGsite really is a meritocracy. There is no general bigotry against games or play styles, despite the Cold War against the Swine (that only one person ever pursued with any vigour). It can seem like it at times, because a number of like-minded individuals ended up posting here and finding common ground. But any bile you find on yourself is going to be from your actions alone. No one passes around a note saying 'pick on the new guy'. JHKim plays all kinds of story games, and he isn't universally reviled. Several prominent members primarily play Vintage Games, and they aren't universally worshipped. And more than a few of us disagree with each other over a number of topics, because there simply is no cult of personality like Frank has or iron-fisted moderation like tBP; it is simply impossible for theRPGsite to 'feel' anything about anything, because there is no consensus.

Quote from: Spike;574082Continuing with my OP, perhaps a bit less verbose this time:

You filthy fucking liar.

Quote from: MGuy;573773Tried to engage with Benoist and Storm. Benoist straight up doesn't care and Storm... I could write an essay on how he's fucked up. Take your pick logic, math, reading comprehension, game design, etc.

Uh huh. Maybe you could have taken just one or two lines from that essay and used them here instead of fumbling around and shitting yourself.

Much easier just to claim the 'victory' without having to actually go through the messy parts of proving it, I guess. For example, I offered you an opportunity some time ago to whip up a 15th level Wizard spell list that would remove the need for a Thief in the party; I even stipulated that said Wizard has 18 Intelligence for the bonus spells. Your response?



So, before you start shining up your 'Awesome Debater' trophy, you might want to actually present a point or two. At least have something resembling evidence to support your contentions. Because what you did, parroting TGD talking points without understanding them? Not engaging. Additionally, blanket refusal to consider anything before 3.x? Auto-fail. It's like claiming cars have always been capable of 150mph, but you have never driven any car manufactured before 2011.

Quote from: Planet Algol;573776Maybe the culture change between old-guard and new-guard is from embracing chaos to embracing predictability?

That sounds a lot like the difference between playing a character and playing a character sheet. I was pondering that myself recently. That used to be known as 'challenging the player' or 'testing the player's skill'.

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.

(Sorry about condensing things late, I didn't realize I was the only one active on the thread!  :)  )

Quote from: MGuy;573719And this is an example of how theRPGsite feels about anybody that disagrees with them.

Quote from: Benoist;573720No. It's an example of how some of us feel about you, specifically.

Yeah, theRPGsite really is a meritocracy.  There is no general bigotry against games or play styles, despite the Cold War against the Swine (that only one person ever pursued with any vigour).  It can seem like it at times, because a number of like-minded individuals ended up posting here and finding common ground.  But any bile you find on yourself is going to be from your actions alone.  No one passes around a note saying 'pick on the new guy'.  JHKim plays all kinds of story games, and he isn't universally reviled.  Several prominent members primarily play Vintage Games, and they aren't universally worshipped.  And more than a few of us disagree with each other over a number of topics, because there simply is no cult of personality like Frank has or iron-fisted moderation like tBP; it is simply impossible for theRPGsite to 'feel' anything about anything, because there is no consensus.

Quote from: Spike;574082Continuing with my OP, perhaps a bit less verbose this time:

You filthy fucking liar.

Quote from: MGuy;573773Tried to engage with Benoist and Storm. Benoist straight up doesn't care and Storm... I could write an essay on how he's fucked up. Take your pick logic, math, reading comprehension, game design, etc.

Uh huh.  Maybe you could have taken just one or two lines from that essay and used them here instead of fumbling around and shitting yourself.

Much easier just to claim the 'victory' without having to actually go through the messy parts of proving it, I guess.  For example, I offered you an opportunity some time ago to whip up a 15th level Wizard spell list that would remove the need for a Thief in the party; I even stipulated that said Wizard has 18 Intelligence for the bonus spells.  Your response?



So, before you start shining up your 'Awesome Debater' trophy, you might want to actually present a point or two.  At least have something resembling evidence to support your contentions.  Because what you did, parroting TGD talking points without understanding them?  Not engaging.  Additionally, blanket refusal to consider anything before 3.x?  Auto-fail.  It's like claiming cars have always been capable of 150mph, but you reject any car manufactured before 2011.

Quote from: Planet Algol;573776Maybe the culture change between old-guard and new-guard is from embracing chaos to embracing predictability?

That sounds a lot like the difference between playing a character and playing character sheet.  I was pondering that myself recently.  That used to be known as 'challenging the player' or 'testing the player's skill'.

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. :D

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.

Ok, well, I think some people are probably exaggerating and being idiots on both sides.  

Also, fighters ARE gimped in 3e.  Its a stupid thing to argue against.

The problem is that Fighters are gimped not because they don't have superpowers, but because they're not allowed to do even normal acts of daring do unless they have the right chain of feats.  Something that in old school would have been a reasonable thing for a fighter to try to do in combat (and would have been resolved with "ok, do it but you have -2 to hit") now requires a specific charop build of 4 different feats to accomplish.

What's more, as others have pointed out, 3e wizards are more like a ridiculous hyperendowed mockery of what earlier-edition wizards were.  You no longer have any chance of failing to learn a spell, you no longer have a chance of failing to cast a spell, you now do have a chance to even manage to cast a spell while someone is stabbing you multiple times, you have no limits to how many spells you can learn per level, you  can create all the magic items you want, and you start with more spells and gain spells like crazy.

So yes, I would say anyone who was trying to honestly argue that fighters are just peachy-keen and not in any way comparatively gimped in 3e are probably being stupid.

So the answer to the problem, as far as 5e is concerned, is to stop handicapping fighters with an exclusive system of feats where not having the feat prevents you from even attempting something that, say, I could probably at least "attempt"; and to make fighters better at killing things compared to the other classes, without making them wuxia magical snowflakes or something.

And the answer to the denner's complaints is: PLAY OLD SCHOOL, MOTHERFUCKERS.  You'll be surprised how much more fun it is.

RPGPundit

The problem on the fighter V. wizards debate is people have been arguing about multiple editions at the same time. The new posters mostly seem to be talking about 3E, but many of us were saying things like "this wasn't really a problem in AD&D and there are ways to manage the issue in 3E". As far as i could tell only a very select number of posters were arguing 3E didn't have balance issues. But anything said about 1E or 2E was largely interpreted by the newcomers as a statement about 3E. The vitriol on the threads just clouded things more.

Quote from: RPGPundit;575304So the answer to the problem, as far as 5e is concerned, is to stop handicapping fighters with an exclusive system of feats where not having the feat prevents you from even attempting something that, say, I could probably at least "attempt";

Based on what I saw in the latest playtest, they have already failed on this.  Parry is a selected combat maneuver for a specific style of fighter?

Please put some sense into them!

Quote from: RPGPundit;575304Ok, well, I think some people are probably exaggerating and being idiots on both sides.  

Also, fighters ARE gimped in 3e.  Its a stupid thing to argue against.

The problem is that Fighters are gimped not because they don't have superpowers, but because they're not allowed to do even normal acts of daring do unless they have the right chain of feats.  Something that in old school would have been a reasonable thing for a fighter to try to do in combat (and would have been resolved with "ok, do it but you have -2 to hit") now requires a specific charop build of 4 different feats to accomplish.

What's more, as others have pointed out, 3e wizards are more like a ridiculous hyperendowed mockery of what earlier-edition wizards were.  You no longer have any chance of failing to learn a spell, you no longer have a chance of failing to cast a spell, you now do have a chance to even manage to cast a spell while someone is stabbing you multiple times, you have no limits to how many spells you can learn per level, you  can create all the magic items you want, and you start with more spells and gain spells like crazy.

So yes, I would say anyone who was trying to honestly argue that fighters are just peachy-keen and not in any way comparatively gimped in 3e are probably being stupid.

Wisdom.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575313Based on what I saw in the latest playtest, they have already failed on this.  Parry is a selected combat maneuver for a specific style of fighter?

Please put some sense into them!

I didn't get that impression.  Any class can go defensive for their action to increase AC.  For Parry, any fighter can use it, and can spend their expertise dice to reduce damage.

So every fighter can do it.  Additionally, with ability checks, any class can also attempt other skills (like trap detection, etc).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575333For Parry, any fighter can use it, and can spend their expertise dice to reduce damage.

Are you sure?  I thought it said that there were four styles of combat, and the Fighter selects one which gives Combat Maneuvers at specific levels (ie.  predetermined Feats).  Parry was a Combat Maneuver on a list, for a specific type of Fighter.

I stopped reading once I saw that.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575349Are you sure?  I thought it said that there were four styles of combat, and the Fighter selects one which gives Combat Maneuvers at specific levels (ie.  predetermined Feats).  Parry was a Combat Maneuver on a list, for a specific type of Fighter.

I stopped reading once I saw that.

You're right that certain specialties have their own maneuvers.  However, all fighters get deadly strike and parry as part of combat superiority.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575398You're right that certain specialties have their own maneuvers.  However, all fighters get deadly strike and parry as part of combat superiority.

All right, I'll give it another look.  Thanks.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575319Wisdom.

I am saddened by my own total lack of surprise that you left off the most important part:

Quote from: RPGPundit;575304And the answer to the denner's complaints is:  PLAY OLD SCHOOL, MOTHERFUCKERS.  You'll be surprised how much more fun  it is.

Generally speaking, even if I agree with someone's observations, the prescription may not be right for all 'patients'.  

Older editions of D&D are not for me, other than in a nostalgic collect the books and compare editions stuff.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575487Generally speaking, even if I agree with someone's observations, the prescription may not be right for all 'patients'.  

Older editions of D&D are not for me, other than in a nostalgic collect the books and compare editions stuff.

This is an honest question. What's your experience with pre-3e D&D? Not "I have played X years with Y edition", but -- have you ever played any older edition? And if so, how did you like it?

I ask not to qualify your opinions or anything, but as a sincere enthusiast of older editions who's only recently (in the last 3 or 4 years) rediscovered them.

Also, sticklers for mechanical consistency will find that some retro-clones and simulacra smooth over some of the old wrinkles; a turn-off for the grognards, but a selling point for the odd newcomer.

(I wish I could invite you over for a D&D RC or ACKS game, that would sound less dickish.)

We've had D&D books in my house as long as I can remember.  I started playing 'for real' with my older brother.  He was born in 1977 and I was born in 1979, so this was probably early- to mid-eighties.  My older brother is significantly more intelligent than I am, and he was the DM.  He made an effort to generally follow the rules, and he only occasionally was a dick.  We also played Orc Wars (a free game included in Dragon magazine) quite a lot.  

I have a lot of typical 1st edition memories, like rolling a character and finding the only thing I was qualified to do was be a Fighter.  I once had a character with psionics.  When he was eating my characters foot I was able to use telekinesis to shove my boot down his throat and choke him to death.  

All the games were set in Mystara, so that was the first setting I was exposed to.  

Beginning in junior high, I started playing 2nd edition.  Let's say 1992?  I ran some games as a DM, some of my friends ran some games, too.  The longest running DM was a friend of mine who is also much smarter than I am.  He scored 1600 on his SAT and went to Harvard and Yale and became a computer scientist dealing with AI, among other things.  In any case, that campaign wasn't my comprehensive experience with 2nd edition, but it was my longest experience with a single campaign.  Magic: The Gathering nearly disrupted it, which was sad.  I'd show up to play D&D and then everyone would decide to play Magic instead - I played, but didn't care for the game much.  

Edit - I'm actually pretty sure I played 2nd edition before Junior High - I know one of the people I played with was a good friend from when I was in Kindergarten, but he didn't go to the same school from 4th-6th grade, and I think we reconnected during that time.  

In 2nd edition we played with some kits.  I liked the Complete Fighters Handbook and the Complete Book of Humanoids.  I spent tons of money buying Character Sheets (they came on green paper, and it wasn't as easy to erase hit points as if you made a photocopy - but photocopies were pretty high tech at the time).  I never could afford all the supplements I wanted.  

I made tons of mistakes as a DM.  Lots of railroading and Gods enforcing alignment (but I had some immature friends who would do stupid things like cut off the head of the NPC they were supposed to be saving and rape the body), but we had fun, anyways.  I liked it better than button-mashing Street Fighter II (we never had a console more advanced than the Nintendo).  

When I graduated High School in 1997, I pretty much took a break from gaming.  In 1999, my future wife was studying abroad, so I got back into gaming with the release of 3rd edition.  I really had fun with it, but we also played some other games, like Deadlands.  When my future wife moved to Iowa in 2001, I moved out there too.  We didn't have family, and gaming was a great way to make some social connections.  It was a college town, so we really had no trouble finding lots of players - usually too many.  We did have problems with different styles of game, and trying to accommodate too many people at once.  But again, by and large, that was a good time.  

I moved to Tennessee in 2009 and I've only been doing 'real' gaming with my Iowa group since then.  We play most every week using video conferencing.  It means I never get to break my minis anymore.  :(  But I've also played and tried to run play-by-post games online.  

I try to make sure that every character is different as far as personality goes, though there are a few similar archetypes I haven't had a chance to explore fully, but if characters have similar personalities, they tend to have very different mechanics.  For example, I've played two 'womanizing' characters.  One was a 'musketeer' character (Fighter build) while the other is a bard/cleric in a more traditional Forgotten Realms campaign.  

So I've been gaming pretty much all my life, usually some version of D&D.  I have extensive experience with prior editions, but it's all very dated.  I do have more of the books than I did when I was younger, and I do review them, refer to them, and treasure them, but I wouldn't want to run it; or particularly eager to play in it.  I really like some of the customization of 3.x; I just wish the implementation had been a little better for some of the stuff.

@DeadDMwalking

Good post, kudos. Just based on your age I would suspect most of your early edition gaming was 2E but that is neither here nor there.

It's amazing how many people 3E brought back.

DeadDM:

I'm not going to go over all the recent arguing and reread the back and forths,

But if I was a dick to you (EDIT: Strike, my previous caveat, that was a shitty copout for me to say and I'm sure you didn't engage in any dishonest OTT hyperbole), I sincerely apologize. And if I acted as if you were arguing in bad faith and you weren't I apologize for tht as well.

There. Something good came of this thread after all!

RPGPundit

OK. I'll admit. Reading DeadDM here makes me think there's hope for him still. I'm back to a wait and see position as far as he's concerned.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575526We've had D&D books in my house as long as I can remember.  I started playing 'for real' with my older brother.  He was born in 1977 and I was born in 1979, so this was probably early- to mid-eighties.  My older brother is significantly more intelligent than I am, and he was the DM.  He made an effort to generally follow the rules, and he only occasionally was a dick.  We also played Orc Wars (a free game included in Dragon magazine) quite a lot.  

I have a lot of typical 1st edition memories, like rolling a character and finding the only thing I was qualified to do was be a Fighter.  I once had a character with psionics.  When he was eating my characters foot I was able to use telekinesis to shove my boot down his throat and choke him to death.  

All the games were set in Mystara, so that was the first setting I was exposed to.  

Beginning in junior high, I started playing 2nd edition.  Let's say 1992?  I ran some games as a DM, some of my friends ran some games, too.  The longest running DM was a friend of mine who is also much smarter than I am.  He scored 1600 on his SAT and went to Harvard and Yale and became a computer scientist dealing with AI, among other things.  In any case, that campaign wasn't my comprehensive experience with 2nd edition, but it was my longest experience with a single campaign.  Magic: The Gathering nearly disrupted it, which was sad.  I'd show up to play D&D and then everyone would decide to play Magic instead - I played, but didn't care for the game much.  

Edit - I'm actually pretty sure I played 2nd edition before Junior High - I know one of the people I played with was a good friend from when I was in Kindergarten, but he didn't go to the same school from 4th-6th grade, and I think we reconnected during that time.  

In 2nd edition we played with some kits.  I liked the Complete Fighters Handbook and the Complete Book of Humanoids.  I spent tons of money buying Character Sheets (they came on green paper, and it wasn't as easy to erase hit points as if you made a photocopy - but photocopies were pretty high tech at the time).  I never could afford all the supplements I wanted.  

I made tons of mistakes as a DM.  Lots of railroading and Gods enforcing alignment (but I had some immature friends who would do stupid things like cut off the head of the NPC they were supposed to be saving and rape the body), but we had fun, anyways.  I liked it better than button-mashing Street Fighter II (we never had a console more advanced than the Nintendo).  

When I graduated High School in 1997, I pretty much took a break from gaming.  In 1999, my future wife was studying abroad, so I got back into gaming with the release of 3rd edition.  I really had fun with it, but we also played some other games, like Deadlands.  When my future wife moved to Iowa in 2001, I moved out there too.  We didn't have family, and gaming was a great way to make some social connections.  It was a college town, so we really had no trouble finding lots of players - usually too many.  We did have problems with different styles of game, and trying to accommodate too many people at once.  But again, by and large, that was a good time.  

I moved to Tennessee in 2009 and I've only been doing 'real' gaming with my Iowa group since then.  We play most every week using video conferencing.  It means I never get to break my minis anymore.  :(  But I've also played and tried to run play-by-post games online.  

I try to make sure that every character is different as far as personality goes, though there are a few similar archetypes I haven't had a chance to explore fully, but if characters have similar personalities, they tend to have very different mechanics.  For example, I've played two 'womanizing' characters.  One was a 'musketeer' character (Fighter build) while the other is a bard/cleric in a more traditional Forgotten Realms campaign.  

So I've been gaming pretty much all my life, usually some version of D&D.  I have extensive experience with prior editions, but it's all very dated.  I do have more of the books than I did when I was younger, and I do review them, refer to them, and treasure them, but I wouldn't want to run it; or particularly eager to play in it.  I really like some of the customization of 3.x; I just wish the implementation had been a little better for some of the stuff.

Just wanted to say that in my experience, High IQ does not equal Good Player, or Good GM.   It seems pretty random to me.

All things being equal, Intelligence is a plus, generally.

Quote from: Bill;575760Just wanted to say that in my experience, High IQ does not equal Good Player, or Good GM.   It seems pretty random to me.

All things being equal, Intelligence is a plus, generally.

Intelligence, AND Empathy/Awareness.

Quote from: Benoist;575762Intelligence, AND Empathy/Awareness.

I also have a theory that being a good dm LOOKS fairly easy, but takes a bit of practice for most people.

Using myself as an example, I took about two years to get a clue that a dungeon full of monsters with each monster sorted in the dungeon levels by HD, is not a real adventure. In my defense, I was pretty young at the time.

1 HD monsters on level 1, 2HD monsters go on level 2 etc...

Fortunately a player explained to me that I was doing it wrong :)

Quote from: Bill;576106I also have a theory that being a good dm LOOKS fairly easy, but takes a bit of practice for most people.

Using myself as an example, I took about two years to get a clue that a dungeon full of monsters with each monster sorted in the dungeon levels by HD, is not a real adventure. In my defense, I was pretty young at the time.

1 HD monsters on level 1, 2HD monsters go on level 2 etc...

Fortunately a player explained to me that I was doing it wrong :)

Well, as a general guideline you weren't doing too bad. Traditionallly the dungeon level was a rough guide to difficulty. Not that rigid of course but the principle was sound.

Quote from: Bill;576106I also have a theory that being a good dm LOOKS fairly easy, but takes a bit of practice for most people.

Using myself as an example, I took about two years to get a clue that a dungeon full of monsters with each monster sorted in the dungeon levels by HD, is not a real adventure. In my defense, I was pretty young at the time.

1 HD monsters on level 1, 2HD monsters go on level 2 etc...

Fortunately a player explained to me that I was doing it wrong :)

This came in relatively early for me. And then, much, much later, I realized that modules, and preps of dungeons and the like, are actually not adventures, that the "adventure" is the actual stuff that happens at the game table when the module comes in contact with a live group of players and their characters, and that basically freed me from all the storywank associated with modules when you construe them as some sorts of "scripts" of a pre-determined nature.

As for your actual point, I think I agree, that good GMing comes with practice, in any case, and not just "thinking about GMing and asking people online for advice". You just learn by doing and making mistakes, and the lessons will be different for everyone. There's no question about it.

Now that said, I think we have a tendency today to consider GMing harder than it actually is and was for us when we started role playing. I started playing with AD&D First Ed. Started running games at 11 with the Dark Eye RPG and Red Box D&D. I introduced a few friends to the game as I learned. One of them picked up Star Wars d6. Another picked up Rolemaster of all things. Around the same time I transitioned to Stormbringer, Hawkmoon and CoC. And everything went without a scratch. The pal who started running his first games with Rolemaster in particular had no problem at all, ran some of the best games in those years, introduced his own little brother to RPGs using Rolemaster as well, and running games for us, allowed us to meet other kids that later became my regular Vampire group. That's about 7-8 kids introduced to RPGs via Rolemaster, without counting the second-third gens of gamers introduced afterwards by these people, of course.

On an internet discussion if you asked what best game would introduce 12-year-old children to RPGs and you said "Rolemaster!" I guarantee that people would look at their computer screen wondering if you're insane. Yet, I have seen in action and there wasn't a single issue.

What's the lesson to that? That the way we perceive what's "easy" and how we consider what children can handle and what they can't is really skewed in the first place. The first real element of success here is EXCITEMENT. It's being excited at the idea of playing. If the kids are jumping up and down at the idea of playing the game, whatever game you have in mind, they'll adapt very fast, and learn just as quickly.

Quote from: Benoist;576201This came in relatively early for me. And then, much, much later, I realized that modules, and preps of dungeons and the like, are actually not adventures, that the "adventure" is the actual stuff that happens at the game table when the module comes in contact with a live group of players and their characters, and that basically freed me from all the storywank associated with modules when you construe them as some sorts of "scripts" of a pre-determined nature.

As for your actual point, I think I agree, that good GMing comes with practice, in any case, and not just "thinking about GMing and asking people online for advice". You just learn by doing and making mistakes, and the lessons will be different for everyone. There's no question about it.

Now that said, I think we have a tendency today to consider GMing harder than it actually is and was for us when we started role playing. I started playing with AD&D First Ed. Started running games at 11 with the Dark Eye RPG and Red Box D&D. I introduced a few friends to the game as I learned. One of them picked up Star Wars d6. Another picked up Rolemaster of all things. Around the same time I transitioned to Stormbringer, Hawkmoon and CoC. And everything went without a scratch. The pal who started running his first games with Rolemaster in particular had no problem at all, ran some of the best games in those years, introduced his own little brother to RPGs using Rolemaster as well, and running games for us, allowed us to meet other kids that later became my regular Vampire group. That's about 7-8 kids introduced to RPGs via Rolemaster, without counting the second-third gens of gamers introduced afterwards by these people, of course.

On an internet discussion if you asked what best game would introduce 12-year-old children to RPGs and you said "Rolemaster!" I guarantee that people would look at their computer screen wondering if you're insane. Yet, I have seen in action and there wasn't a single issue.

What's the lesson to that? That the way we perceive what's "easy" and how we consider what children can handle and what they can't is really skewed in the first place. The first real element of success here is EXCITEMENT. It's being excited at the idea of playing. If the kids are jumping up and down at the idea of playing the game, whatever game you have in mind, they'll adapt very fast, and learn just as quickly.

Rolemaster for new rpgers! I would have guessed that would be tough.

It helps when at least one person at the table has familiarity with the game.

Dark Eye! I know someone that has a copy, and I forgot to grab it! Curious about that game.

Quote from: Bill;576210It helps when at least one person at the table has familiarity with the game.

None of us had familiarity with the game at the time, that's the beauty of it. And we didn't have problems playing it. We just figured things out as we went, and it didn't take that long when I think back about it. Just a couple sessions really, all things considered. We were 12-13 at the time.

Quote from: Bill;576210Dark Eye! I know someone that has a copy, and I forgot to grab it! Curious about that game.

Well the Dark Eye, L'Oeil Noir in French, Das Schwarze Auge in the original language, was a German competitor to the introductory boxed sets like Mentzer D&D and the like. At the time it was much different than the Dark Eye RPG that got printed in English in the 2000s (which I also have here). I'm a Dark Eye Grognard, certainly.

Quote from: Benoist;576217None of us had familiarity with the game at the time, that's the beauty of it. And we didn't have problems playing it. We just figured things out as we went, and it didn't take that long when I think back about it. Just a couple sessions really, all things considered. We were 12-13 at the time.



Well the Dark Eye, L'Oeil Noir in French, Das Schwarze Auge in the original language, was a German competitor to the introductory boxed sets like Mentzer D&D and the like. At the time it was much different than the Dark Eye RPG that got printed in English in the 2000s (which I also have here). I'm a Dark Eye Grognard, certainly.

My exposure to Dark Eye was from computer games that actually used the pen and paper mechanics. Might be too crunchy for me, but I have wanted to take a look. No idea which version I will get my hands on.

The boxed set of "Initiation au Jeu d'Aventure" was about as crunchy as Mentzer D&D Red Box was. It had basic rules to play fighters, magicians, elves, dwarves, sorceress, adventurer (a generic non-class everything average default of sorts) and ... it escapes me right now. I don't have the boxed set right next to me at this moment. In any case, the second boxed set, "Règles Avancées au Jeu d'Aventure", expended greatly on those rules, adding maneuvers where there only were Attack and Parry rolls in the base rules, adding classes like the Cavalier and a buttload of others, and so on. The Maîtres d'Armes boxed sets (there were two of those IIRC) expended even further on these options, in such a way that if you used all the corpus of rules available throughout the supplements run, you could end up with a very crunchy game indeed.

I'm a fan of the basic boxed set myself. These rules work well, and I don't need (most of) the complication of later rules. Add in Havena for good measure (which was yet another boxed set describing a port of Aventuria, what Pavis was to RuneQuest or Ptolus to 3rd ed rules, basically), and you got enough material to game for years.

I just wanted to post to remind the person collecting all of this for Grognards.txt to properly format it so i can maybe (probably not) read it later.

Quote from: kregmosier;577657I just wanted to post to remind the person collecting all of this for Grognards.txt to properly format it so i can maybe (probably not) read it later.

Mate, even those cunts have better things to do. Well, perhaps bar Corley. He has a boner of hate.

Quote from: Benoist;576201Now that said, I think we have a tendency today to consider GMing harder than it actually is and was for us when we started role playing. I started playing with AD&D First Ed. Started running games at 11 with the Dark Eye RPG and Red Box D&D. I introduced a few friends to the game as I learned. One of them picked up Star Wars d6. Another picked up Rolemaster of all things. Around the same time I transitioned to Stormbringer, Hawkmoon and CoC. And everything went without a scratch. The pal who started running his first games with Rolemaster in particular had no problem at all, ran some of the best games in those years, introduced his own little brother to RPGs using Rolemaster as well, and running games for us, allowed us to meet other kids that later became my regular Vampire group. That's about 7-8 kids introduced to RPGs via Rolemaster, without counting the second-third gens of gamers introduced afterwards by these people, of course.

On an internet discussion if you asked what best game would introduce 12-year-old children to RPGs and you said "Rolemaster!" I guarantee that people would look at their computer screen wondering if you're insane. Yet, I have seen in action and there wasn't a single issue.

Though I'm loath to comment in one of these threads that have been about of late, I enjoyed your stories about Rolemaster and Das Schwarze Auge Benoist.

It seems that all the thunderdome thread have imploded mostly due to people from this form ragequting.

What surprises me is that people here didn't know what sort of tactics the TGD folks would employ in advance. They seem intuitively obvious to me.

If the thunderdome is no longer and option then I don't think Kaelik, MGuy, or myself can "prove" anything. If we only talk rules then you call us names and acuse us of white room wanking. If we bring up anacdotes they are dismissed as examples of a bad DM. If we try to simulate play as best we can then one of you flips the table before we can reach a conclusion.

The only thing I've learnd here is to never game with grognards regarless of edition, and that older editions are not for me.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577815It seems that all the thunderdome thread have imploded mostly due to people from this form ragequting.

What surprises me is that people here didn't know what sort of tactics the TGD folks would employ in advance. They seem intuitively obvious to me.

If the thunderdome is no longer and option then I don't think Kaelik, MGuy, or myself can "prove" anything. If we only talk rules then you call us names and acuse us of white room wanking. If we bring up anacdotes they are dismissed as examples of a bad DM. If we try to simulate play as best we can then one of you flips the table before we can reach a conclusion.

The only thing I've learnd here is to never game with grognards regarless of edition, and that older editions are not for me.

C'est la vie

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577817C'est la vie

What disappoints me is these are debates I've seen and participated in on the old WotC boards, Giantitp, and several other boards. It's like the people who lost the debates there have all washed up here and have completely closed their minds to differing points of view.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577815It seems that all the thunderdome thread have imploded mostly due to people from this form ragequting.

What surprises me is that people here didn't know what sort of tactics the TGD folks would employ in advance. They seem intuitively obvious to me.

If the thunderdome is no longer and option then I don't think Kaelik, MGuy, or myself can "prove" anything. If we only talk rules then you call us names and acuse us of white room wanking. If we bring up anacdotes they are dismissed as examples of a bad DM. If we try to simulate play as best we can then one of you flips the table before we can reach a conclusion.

The only thing I've learnd here is to never game with grognards regarless of edition, and that older editions are not for me.

You are welcome to play in any non-D&D campaign anytime.  You have too much baggage with D&D.  You need to take a break from obsessing about it.  Life is too short.

Thoughts provoked by this thread:

1) Is Mistborn's avatar a Touhou char?

2) I need to remember to check out Rolemaster.

Quote from: Kuroth;577820You are welcome to play in any non-D&D campaign anytime.  You have too much baggage with D&D.  You need to take a break from obsessing about it.  Life is too short.

I really can't think of any game that gives me what I want the same way as 3.5. The game I'm in right now sucks but since I'm posting it to the internet I sort of feel obligated. Hopefully the other player get sick of the Dm's bullshit before it becomes a big deal.

Quote from: Peregrin;5778211) Is Mistborn's avatar a Touhou char?

Yep, Flandre Scarlet.

Quote from: Peregrin;5778212) I need to remember to check out Rolemaster.

Yes you do.

Quote from: Peregrin;5778212) I need to remember to check out Rolemaster.

Is that the one with the crazy fumble charts

because I have rule that anyone who takes out fumbles charts in my presence has to eat them

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577822Yep, Flandre Scarlet.

Thought so.

Quote from: One Horse Town;577823Yes you do.

Months ago I would've said "Nah, not enough space for new books."  Unfortunately my family saw fit to gift me a Kindle for Christmas, which means I've been blowing my disposable income on PDFs instead.

At least my ongoing education in games gets to continue.  Having three active groups helps, too, especially when they're willing to try new (or old) games.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577824Is that the one with the crazy fumble charts

because I have rule that anyone who takes out fumbles charts in my presence has to eat them

I have a rule that if your system has more than a paragraph on doors, you have to eat the corebook. ;)

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577815It seems that all the thunderdome thread have imploded mostly due to people from this form ragequting.

What surprises me is that people here didn't know what sort of tactics the TGD folks would employ in advance. They seem intuitively obvious to me.

If the thunderdome is no longer and option then I don't think Kaelik, MGuy, or myself can "prove" anything. If we only talk rules then you call us names and acuse us of white room wanking. If we bring up anacdotes they are dismissed as examples of a bad DM. If we try to simulate play as best we can then one of you flips the table before we can reach a conclusion.

The only thing I've learnd here is to never game with grognards regarless of edition, and that older editions are not for me.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577818What disappoints me is these are debates I've seen and participated in on the old WotC boards, Giantitp, and several other boards. It's like the people who lost the debates there have all washed up here and have completely closed their minds to differing points of view.

I think the Gaming Den's bad reputation and Kaelik's hostile posting style are part of why there's trouble convincing others of their viewpoints.  There is hostility from RPG Site posters as well, and mutual aggression shuts down debates before they begin.  I do agree with several of the TGD's posts about class balance and Fighters vs. Wizards, I just think that the atmosphere generated worked against them.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577818What disappoints me is these are debates I've seen and participated in on the old WotC boards, Giantitp, and several other boards. It's like the people who lost the debates there have all washed up here and have completely closed their minds to differing points of view.

Your quest for a worthy foe will take you elsewhere I suppose.

One can hope. And pray (but only because doing so ticks 'em off).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577833Your quest for a worthy foe will take you elsewhere I suppose.

From your keyboard to God's ears.

Quote from: StormBringer;577861From your keyboard to God's ears.

Seconded. How many times do I have to say I neither care for and actively don't want their notion of "balance" in the games I play? It's like talking to my customers.  No means no. And sorry you think something that is an issue isn't an issue to those that don't do selfish and stupid things.  How many times does someone have to say they neither want or prefer a "denner" notion of balance in their games.  To a casual gamer like myself you're speaking Greek and about nonissues except to people that live in basements and have no clue what a shower is used for. "No" actually means "no" in the real world.

Quote from: Marleycat;577880Seconded. How many times do I have to say I neither care for and actively don't want their notion of "balance" in the games I play? It's like talking to my customers.  No means no. And sorry you think something that is an issue isn't an issue to those that don't do selfish and stupid things.  How many times does someone have to say they neither want or prefer a "denner" notion of balance in their games.  To a casual gamer like myself you're speaking Greek and about nonissues except to people that live in basements and have no clue what a shower is used for. "No" actually means "no" in the real world.

It's the entirely solipsistic way every random statement they make is supposed to be an axiom that gets to me.  Like there is no standard of proof or need to provide evidence in support of these statements, but they demand the highest level of evidence from others because they really do think their ideas are a fundamental truth of the (gaming) universe.

Quote from: StormBringer;578203It's the entirely solipsistic way every random statement they make is supposed to be an axiom that gets to me.  Like there is no standard of proof or need to provide evidence in support of these statements, but they demand the highest level of evidence from others because they really do think their ideas are a fundamental truth of the (gaming) universe.

Heh. A longwinded way of saying their shit doesn't stink.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;578297Heh. A longwinded way of saying their shit doesn't stink.

:hatsoff:

Which is entirely expected from, I dunno...  late teens to early 20s?  I am utterly baffled at the level of societal failure that allows that kind of behaviour to continue after one turns 24 and still permits them to survive.  St Darwin protect us!  :)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;578297Heh. A longwinded way of saying their shit doesn't stink.

It's more apt to call it the reason I keep telling people to stop talking to him. Seriously this is what he thinks of people who respond to his impressively bad arguments. It's worse than talking to a wall because he not only responds but he does so in a way that clearly evidences some sort of brain damage and yet thinks himself "high minded" enough to talk down to people with functioning brains. I mean it is actually hard to gauge what is worse. The fact that he consistently proves he does not know what he is talking about, the fact that he refuses to even concede when actual logic he should have learned in high school is thrown at him, or the people who nod their heads and encourage this kind of behavior.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Premise#1:  A Magic-User who can use any spell at any time is more powerful than a Fighter.
Premise#2:  A Magic-User cannot use any spell at any time.
Conclusion:  A Magic-User is not more powerful than a Fighter.

Refute away, O Masters of logic.

Quote from: StormBringer;578307Which is entirely expected from, I dunno...  late teens to early 20s?

I'm still in my early 20s myself (until tomorrow).

Quote from: StormBringer;578438Premise#1:  A Magic-User who can use any spell at any time is more powerful than a Fighter.
Premise#2:  A Magic-User cannot use any spell at any time.
Conclusion:  A Magic-User is not more powerful than a Fighter.

Refute away, O Masters of logic.

Check the design and development threads on my homebrew, wherein premises 1 and 2 are incorrect.

Or if this is D&D only, I point to the warlock for about the same reason.

To address what I'm sure you meant, balance depends on the pace of encounters in a per-day system like D&D. Also on whether the party can control the frequency of rests. Old point but still relevant.

Quote from: StormBringer;578438Premise#1:  A Magic-User who can use any spell at any time is more powerful than a Fighter.
Premise#2:  A Magic-User cannot use any spell at any time.
Conclusion:  A Magic-User is not more powerful than a Fighter.

Refute away, O Masters of logic.

Refuted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)

Seriously, how hilarious that even when you get to make up the premises, you still argue in fallacies.

Quote from: Kaelik;578444Refuted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)

Seriously, how hilarious that even when you get to make up the premises, you still argue in fallacies.

Goodness, and how convenient for you that he phrased it in exactly the usual pattern of that exact fallacy.  It's almost as though he knew he was doing it.

:jaw-dropping:

Quote from: Panzerkraken;578445Goodness, and how convenient for you that he phrased it in exactly the usual pattern of that exact fallacy.  It's almost as though he knew he was doing it.

If you really believe that, then you are an idiot. He thinks demand lowers price, which means he never got to senior year of high school, much less ever learned logic.

Quote from: StormBringer;578438Premise#1:  A Magic-User who can use any spell at any time is more powerful than a Fighter.
Premise#2:  A Magic-User cannot use any spell at any time.
Conclusion:  A Magic-User is not more powerful than a Fighter.

Refute away, O Masters of logic.

Quote from: Kaelik;578444Refuted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)

Seriously, how hilarious that even when you get to make up the premises, you still argue in fallacies.

That's a pretty good response.  I was just going to point out that we already have a thread or two to talk about Fighter vs. Wizard stuff, and trying to pollute another thread with this was impolite.  

Quote from: StormBringer;578203It's the entirely solipsistic way every random statement they make is supposed to be an axiom that gets to me.  Like there is no standard of proof or need to provide evidence in support of these statements, but they demand the highest level of evidence from others because they really do think their ideas are a fundamental truth of the (gaming) universe.

You know, this reminded me of another time you were being a dumb ass.  You see, for lots of positions I've taken I've provided evidence.  Direct observation, analysis of game features, samples of others making similar observations - even quotes from the designers themselves.  

What I've noticed is that you tend NOT to refute any evidence and begin resorting immediately to attacks.    

Quote from: StormBringer;558802But here's the thing:  I trust Spike to discuss in good faith.  I Give Spike the benefit of the doubt, because I have not known him to make up shit whole cloth and present it as objective fact.  You, on the other hand, would be well advised to support your assertions with links and evidence until the same can be said of you.

Now, in this quote, you were referring to Spike, but the fact is, you trust yourself, too.  Far too much, really.  Because you're a dumb ass.  

But I think the 'den invasion' if that's what it is has been good for you.  You see, it's encouraged you to step up your game.  You know, use actual reasoning and discussion.  It hasn't worked, but I have hope that it will, eventually.  But I'll quote myself here:

Quote from: deadDMwalking;558804And I don't care if you give me the benefit of the doubt.  If I say something that is true and I don't support it, you can feel free to refute it.  Or not.  And if I feel like it, I will support it.  But a lot of that depends on how relevant it is to the conversation.  Reading medical journals isn't fun for me.  Finding an article in a medical journal and providing you a link to the abstract isn't fun for me.  You seem to think you can dictate that I have to jump through hoops for your benefit.  

I don't.  

I won't jump through hoops for your benefit because it is my considered opinion that you're a dumbass.  I also like telling you that.  Dumbass.  

Maybe the next time you want to get into a discussion and you think people are offering 'axioms', you could ask what observation led them to that belief, and maybe even volunteer what information you would consider acceptable 'proof'.  Because so far, the only 'proof' I've seen you willing to offer is 'NUH-UH!!!'.  

That's why you continue to amuse me.  You're so smug in your perceived superiority, and you don't even realize that almost every time you type something, you come across as a dumb ass.  Having the opportunity to watch you being stupid is the main draw for me on this site.  That and pointing it out to you.  

I was a little sad that One Horse Town closed that one thread before you could respond with Nerd Rage, but I will point out that I have not been pointing out that you're a dumb ass in any thread until you really deserve it - like now.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;578445Goodness, and how convenient for you that he phrased it in exactly the usual pattern of that exact fallacy.  It's almost as though he knew he was doing it.

:jaw-dropping:

So you're saying he's being a dumb ass on purpose?  Almost like he's arguing in bad faith or being disingenuous?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;578450So you're saying he's being a dumb ass on purpose?  Almost like he's arguing in bad faith or being disingenuous?

You're only now realizing this. The balance of trolling and discussion is always zero. Now that Declan is banned all the other grognards are trolling twice as hard.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;578447Having the opportunity to watch you being stupid is the main draw for me on this site.  That and pointing it out to you.  

Maybe you should have another look at your priorities.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578451The balance of trolling and discussion is always zero.

QFT.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578453QFT.

When wishing for a troll to be banned someone else must become equally a trollish. That is what it means to post on theRPGsite. I've been such a fool. ;_;

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578459When wishing for a troll to be banned someone else must become equally a trollish. That what it means to post on theRPGsite. I've been such a fool. ;_;

In my experience a lot of trolls have really bad grammar.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578461In my experience a lot of trolls have really bad grammar.

You have a lot of cred with me from the Declan incident please let's not be like this. I want there to be at least one mod on this site that moderates.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578463You have a lot of cred with me from the Declan incident please let's not be like this. I want there to be at least one mod on this site that moderates.

Shrug.

This thread is rather provoking, i admit, so i'll give some leeway, but you 4 (yes, all 4 of you!) might want to try integrating with the board rather than just kicking the hornet's nest.

Just a suggestion. I'm sure it'll be ignored.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578468Shrug.

This thread is rather provoking, i admit, so i'll give some leeway, but you 4 (yes, all 4 of you!) might want to try integrating with the board rather than just kicking the hornet's nest.

Just a suggestion. I'm sure it'll be ignored.

We're arguing yes, but in good faith.

This place has clearly been a bubble for far to long if the response to alternate points of view is namecalling and accusations of mental sickness (even from one of the mods).

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578469We're arguing yes, but in good faith.
.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

At least I am. No promises about sempai.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578469We're arguing yes, but in good faith.

This place has clearly been a bubble for far to long if the response to alternate points of view is namecalling and accusations of mental sickness (even from one of the mods).

Don't play the victim card, mate. We both know this is a two-way street.

If the different point of view is presented as an alternative, rather than a better point of view, i'm guessing much of the butt-hurt on both sides disappears.

Then again, someone is wrong on the internet, right?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;578450So you're saying he's being a dumb ass on purpose?  Almost like he's arguing in bad faith or being disingenuous?

If he knows the fallacy it would more likely be an attempt at humor.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578472Then again, someone is wrong on the internet, right?

What am a supposed to do leave then they'll keep on being wrong.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578475What am a supposed to do leave then they'll keep on being wrong.

and that, my friends, is the money quote.

Just put the fuckers on ignore is my advice.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578476and that, my friends, is the money quote.

Just put the fuckers on ignore is my advice.

You do realize that was a joke right. I was directly quoting XKCD there

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578469We're arguing yes, but in good faith.
.

ORLY?  This is you arguing in good faith?

Quote from: Lord MistbornIf you wonder why I so rarely respond to your posts. It's because I find it hard to understand you through all the cocks you're sucking. Try actually contributing to threads and not sucking Benoist's cock.

Otherwise 0/10 would not be trolled again.

See you in the fall semester.

:nono:

Look dude.  You and MGuy came here and proceeded to do nothing but engage in strawmen and red herrings left and right.  You do not get to suddenly say, "We're doing everything legit, it's these other guys who keep arguing bad faith and call us names." without looking like a hypocritical  douchebag.

Sorry, that's the way it is.  You made your bed and established yourselves with your posting style.  You're going to have to live with it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578491ORLY?  This is you arguing in good faith?



:nono:

Look dude.  You and MGuy came here and proceeded to do nothing but engage in strawmen and red herrings left and right.  You do not get to suddenly say, "We're doing everything legit, it's these other guys who keep arguing bad faith and call us names." without looking like a hypocritical  douchebag.

Sorry, that's the way it is.  You made your bed and established yourselves with your posting style.  You're going to have to live with it.

To be fair all the post I was responding to was namecalling devoid of argument so their was nothing for me to refute.

0/10 see you in the fall semester.

Quote from: Kaelik;578446If you really believe that, then you are an idiot. He thinks demand lowers price, which means he never got to senior year of high school, much less ever learned logic.

"If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and lower quantity."

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578494To be fair all the post I was responding to was namecalling devoid of argument so their was nothing for me to refute.

0/10 see you in the fall semester.

Nothing to refute?  Your statement was in response to me pointing out your hypocrisy by accusing Stormy of using a strawmen when you were doing the exact same thing.  I even had the quotes in question that clearly illustrated you doing it.

Saying "nothing to refute" only means you were caught being a douche, and rather than admit to it, resorted to a personal attack because you couldn't refute it.

You really are something special, you know that?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578497Nothing to refute?  Your statement was in response to me pointing out your hypocrisy by accusing Stormy of using a strawmen when you were doing the exact same thing.  I even had the quotes in question that clearly illustrated you doing it.

Saying "nothing to refute" only means you were caught being a douche, and rather than admit to it, resorted to a personal attack because you couldn't refute it.

You really are something special, you know that?

and I think I walked back and apologized on that one (I had you confused with Marleycat) but now I'm thinking that apology was unwarranted.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578500and I think I walked back and apologized on that one (I had you confused with Marleycat) but now I'm thinking that apology was unwarranted.

This is what you consider an apology?

Quote from: Lord MistbornI get you confused with Marleycat sometimes. You have the same way of posting nothing of substance veiled in trolling.

Wow.  Keep digging.  I expect you to try to position yourself as the victim in a minute, and to ignore all of these examples of you doing behavior that you have said you don't do.

I must win at all costs!

Even if it means everyone thinks i'm a cunt!

Seriously, put people on ignore. Yes, that's for 'Denners' and regulars.

I have puppies to feed.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578503This is what you consider an apology?



Wow.  Keep digging.  I expect you to try to position yourself as the victim in a minute, and to ignore all of these examples of you doing behavior that you have said you don't do.

Do you want me to start going through your posts and quoting you being a dick. I can do that too ya know.

I've been trying do avoid personal insults recently but I can change that if you want.

I've found not being a total dick is more productive, you should try it sometime.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578505Even if it means everyone thinks i'm a cunt!

Seriously, put people on ignore. Yes, that's for 'Denners' and regulars.

I have puppies to feed.

Feed them Denners and Regulars, finely minced! :D

Quote from: gleichman;578509Feed them Denners and Regulars, finely minced! :D

I think they'd choke. ;)

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578507Do you want me to start going through your posts and quoting you being a dick. I can do that to ya know.

I've been trying do avoid personal insults recently but I can change that if you want.

I've found not being a total dick is more productive, you should try it sometime.

I've never claimed that I'm not a dick.  I know I can be sometimes.  But what I'm not is a hypocrite

Like I said.  You made your bed.  You can't take the high road now, no matter how much you try to deny your behavior.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578511I think they'd choke. ;)

I'm having second thoughts. Do you think "you are what you eat" applies to puppies?

Quote from: gleichman;578513I'm having second thoughts. Do you think "you are what you eat" applies to puppies?

Shit, i called one of mine Brian! :rotfl:

One thing I've learned from the Den Invasion (at least for the denners posting here) is that the following two rules seems to be true:

1) If the RAW can be interpreted as allowing the player to do something, the GM must allow it or denners consider him a dick GM.  

2) If the RAW can be interpreted as giving the GM power over a character (not allowing all prestige classes in 3.x, not allowing a cleric his choice of spells in 1e/2e -- both things the RAW saying the GM should do) denners consider him a a dick GM if he follows the rule and doing so interferes with what they want for their character.

Basically, any GM who does not allow a player to walk all over them, the setting, and/or the other players is a dick GM -- whether the GM is following the RAW or not when he does so does not seem to really enter into it.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578515Shit, i called one of mine Brian! :rotfl:

Sigh, the errors we make in life.

If One Horse Town is going to close all the thread that "denners" frequent he might as well go whole hog and start banning them.

Just in case I get banned I think I'll thow out a big post on gaming therpgsite and everything.

DeadDMwalking and I are not denners we have accounts on TGD but I have literaly 1000% more posts here than on TGD. We are here because the debate is here, and it's not about Fighters vs Wizards or Bone Devils it's about how the game is played and where if should be going in the future.

DeadDMwalking, MGuy, Kaelik and myself have an ideal we want for RPG in general and D&D in particular. That a new DM and a new group of players can run a fun game right out of the books without having to houserule everything or break out the magical tea. This is not something any game can do right now but that's no reason not try for it.

The thing is that the grognard hivemind on this form can't seem to grasp this concept. When we point out problems with rules of any kind they pitch a huge fit and call us autistic. Declan was a sockpuppet and a troll but Benoist set up an entire thread for him to troll in and then defended him from criticism. If I started a thread labeled 2e is the game of choice for assholes I would be banned on the spot and rightly so.

My hands aren't clean but I only responded with insults when people were being insulting and generally try to also answer their argument. The grognard hivemind on the other hand uses insults to dismiss peoples arguments, and that's not cool.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578520If One Horse Town is going to close all the thread that "denners" frequent he might as well go whole hog and start banning them.

Don't be like that.

Be like the guys who want to integrate into a new site they've recently discovered.  

Engage in actual discussions, rather than dick-waving contests. Talk about your gaming experiences that don't crap on the user-base here. Regale us with your house-rules (you use them, right?). Talk about your campaigns and the cool characters you played. Post new monsters and spells.

In fact, do pretty much anything but continually antagonise a largely old-school board.

How hard can it be?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578503I expect you to try to position yourself as the victim in a minute, and to ignore all of these examples of you doing behavior that you have said you don't do.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578520The thing is that the grognard hivemind on this form can't seem to grasp this concept. When we point out problems with rules of any kind they pitch a huge fit and call us autistic. Declan was a sockpuppet and a troll but Benoist set up an entire thread for him to troll in and then defended him from criticism. If I started a thread labeled 2e is the game of choice for assholes I would be banned on the spot and rightly so.

My hands aren't clean but I only responded with insults when people were being insulting and generally try to also answer their argument. The grognard hivemind on the other hand uses insults to dismiss peoples arguments, and that's not cool.

:boohoo:

Quote from: One Horse Town;578521Don't be like that.

Be like the guys who want to integrate into a new site they've recently discovered.  

Engage in actual discussions, rather than dick-waving contests. Talk about your gaming experiences that don't crap on the user-base here. Regale us with your house-rules (you use them, right?). Talk about your campaigns and the cool characters you played. Post new monsters and spells.

In fact, do pretty much anything but continually antagonise a largely old-school board.

How hard can it be?

I willing to be civil as soon as the other posters are, heck  I've been reducing my personal attacks since I signed up. Are you saying that the regulars on this form are incapable of having a mature discussion of game design.

Quote from: RandallS;578518One thing I've learned from the Den Invasion (at least for the denners posting here) is that the following two rules seems to be true:

1) If the RAW can be interpreted as allowing the player to do something, the GM must allow it or denners consider him a dick GM.  

2) If the RAW can be interpreted as giving the GM power over a character (not allowing all prestige classes in 3.x, not allowing a cleric his choice of spells in 1e/2e -- both things the RAW saying the GM should do) denners consider him a a dick GM if he follows the rule and doing so interferes with what they want for their character.

Basically, any GM who does not allow a player to walk all over them, the setting, and/or the other players is a dick GM -- whether the GM is following the RAW or not when he does so does not seem to really enter into it.

Stop straw-manning I'm on record as not advocating all RAW all the time

Just because the GM can do something dose not mean he should do that thing. Everything I've said about PrC's applies to Cleric spells. If the DM is a controlling jackass, the he will be a controlling jackass regardless of RAW.

Let me go on record that any rule that gives the DM unwarranted power over a players choice of class, spell, or feat is a problematic rule.

And Sarc do you want me to be an asshole, because I thought I was doing the mature thing by trying to unilaterally disarm my personal attacks

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578523Are you saying that the regulars on this form are incapable of having a mature discussion of game design.

I'll just leave this hanging here. I need say no more.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578528I'll just leave this hanging here. I need say no more.

Sorry I didn't prepare Detect Sarcasm today.

Are you saying if I start a thread for discussing game design than it will always dissolve into trolling regardless of what I do.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578522:boohoo:

(golf clap)

Quote from: One Horse Town;578521Don't be like that.

Be like the guys who want to integrate into a new site they've recently discovered.  



In fact, do pretty much anything but continually antagonise a largely old-school board.

Come now, you have to admit that basically the only way to do that is totally sign away any type of independent thought. It's basically the old-school way or the highway here (where highway means being endlessly subjected to vulgar personal attacks).

I do a nice neutral thread like the one on PC Communication and Pundit himself jumps in to threadcap it.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578530Sorry I didn't prepare Detect Sarcasm today.

Are you saying if I start a thread for discussing game design than it will always dissolve into trolling regardless of what I do.

Dunno, depends whether the opening post sets the trend.

Design threads obviously go in the design sub-forum.

Are you going to start a thread in the design sub-forum? I look forward to it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578522:boohoo:

Do I need to page though Benoists posts and quote him calling people autistic rather than responding to their arguments.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578536Do I need to page though Benoists posts and quote him calling people autistic rather than responding to their arguments.

That would be nearly any post that didn't consist of people praising him in some manner.

Quote from: gleichman;578533Come now, you have to admit that basically the only way to do that is totally sign away any type of independent thought. It's basically the old-school way or the highway here (where highway means being endlessly subjected to vulgar personal attacks).

I do a nice neutral thread like the one on PC Communication and Pundit himself jumps in to threadcap it.

I haven't read the thread, so i can't comment.

If you know the site is a largely old-school one, then surely you come here to discuss old-school games (mainly, it's not exclusive, just largely) and meet your fix of other games at other sites?

If that isn't the case, then why not the highway? There are plenty of sites to discuss other games.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578538I haven't read the thread, so i can't comment.

Here it is (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23845), take a look. Pundit's threadcap and insult is post 36.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578538If that isn't the case, then why not the highway? There are plenty of sites to discuss other games.

As I've said before, there's a subset of posters I enjoy reading here.

However since you brought it up, is it the official position of therpgsite that only old-school posters are welcomed here?

Quote from: One Horse Town;578538I haven't read the thread, so i can't comment.

If you know the site is a largely old-school one, then surely you come here to discuss old-school games (mainly, it's not exclusive, just largely) and meet your fix of other games at other sites?

If that isn't the case, then why not the highway? There are plenty of sites to discuss other games.

I'm here because that's where the debate is. If this month has taught us anything it's that only having argeement is toxic to site culture. Everyone here is welcome at TGD. (well as welcome as anyone else) I think this exchange of ideas is ultimately a good thing. I know my view of old-school gaming has changed greatly from being on this site.

Quote from: gleichman;578540However since you brought it up, is it the official position of therpgsite that only old-school posters are welcomed here?

No. But it isn't rocket-science is it to realise that that is the majority?

Come in all guns blazing telling folk they're crazy-wrong isn't going to go down well is it?

Differing opinions on gaming are fine in my book, but coming here to shit on people? No.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578541Everyone here is welcome at TGD. (well as welcome as anyone else)

But you only have 1.25 posts at the Gaming Den.

Sorry, mate, but at this point, you're not really fooling anyone - well, maybe except Brian.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578544But you only have 1.25 posts at the Gaming Den.

Sorry, mate, but at this point, you're not really fooling anyone - well, maybe except Brian.

13 actually most of it is in Apparently Expeditious Retreat, Swift is broken where I bitch about my new gaming group.

Quote from: One Horse Town;578542Differing opinions on gaming are fine in my book, but coming here to shit on people? No.

But you're good when regulars sh*t one people in threads like the one I pointed out for you?

Look, I understand what you're shooting for here. But you must be aware that much of what you're getting is earned. Pundit turned this site into his personal war against the swine, and the regulars by posting their old-school opinions while constantly using terms like OCD and aspergers to describe other styles have continued the tradition. If that hadn't been so consistant here, the denners would have likely never noticed.

Quote from: gleichman;578533Come now, you have to admit that basically the only way to do that is totally sign away any type of independent thought. It's basically the old-school way or the highway here (where highway means being endlessly subjected to vulgar personal attacks).

I do a nice neutral thread like the one on PC Communication and Pundit himself jumps in to threadcap it.

That was a pretty minimal portion of that thread though. I think the main reason it petered out was just that few people use rules for that sort of thing.

As for the old-school or the highway thing, you can see how much feedback the four threads on my system-in-progress got. It's unapologetically modern. Same goes for Soul Fantasy: largely constructive feedback, continuous traffic, all that good stuff.

As usual, I'd really recommend some of the threads on that subforum. It's where most good things happen on this site (as entertaining as the silliness on the main forum sometimes is).

Quote from: One Horse Town;578542Come in all guns blazing telling folk they're crazy-wrong isn't going to go down well is it?

Differing opinions on gaming are fine in my book, but coming here to shit on people? No.

Except that's not what happened. What happened was that people had different opinions than this board, so this board blazed guns about how crazy wrong people are and shat on us.

I mean, Benoist literally spent an entire thread explaining in great detail how we are all terrible people, he would kick us out of the game, autistic this and that, how dare we play the way we play, anyone who builds a Cleric that fights in melee and doesn't serve their proper roll deserves to be punched in the face, ect.

Quote from: beejazz;578548That was a pretty minimal portion of that thread though. I think the main reason it petered out was just that few people use rules for that sort of thing.

I thought that it would be rather short, in fact it was longer than I expected and I got some surprising answers in it.

But despite being short, it still drew undeserved fire.

Quote from: Kaelik;578550Except that's not what happened. What happened was that people had different opinions than this board, so this board blazed guns about how crazy wrong people are and shat on us.

I mean, Benoist literally spent an entire thread explaining in great detail how we are all terrible people, he would kick us out of the game, autistic this and that, how dare we play the way we play, anyone who builds a Cleric that fights in melee and doesn't serve their proper roll deserves to be punched in the face, ect.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578520If One Horse Town is going to close all the thread that "denners" frequent he might as well go whole hog and start banning them.

Just in case I get banned I think I'll thow out a big post on gaming therpgsite and everything.

DeadDMwalking and I are not denners we have accounts on TGD but I have literaly 1000% more posts here than on TGD. We are here because the debate is here, and it's not about Fighters vs Wizards or Bone Devils it's about how the game is played and where if should be going in the future.

DeadDMwalking, MGuy, Kaelik and myself have an ideal we want for RPG in general and D&D in particular. That a new DM and a new group of players can run a fun game right out of the books without having to houserule everything or break out the magical tea. This is not something any game can do right now but that's no reason not try for it.

I don't personally see that as a laudable goal, or a feasible one given the infrastructure of how RPGs actually work, but that's no big deal to me if you want to head off on the "la marche futil".

QuoteIf I started a thread labeled 2e is the game of choice for assholes I would be banned on the spot and rightly so.

No, you wouldn't.  Not on this forum, anyways. Around here we ban people for site disruption (massive trolling, "stalking", intentional thread derailment, posting illegal material, sockpuppetry); not for disagreeing with us.

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse Town;578521Don't be like that.

Be like the guys who want to integrate into a new site they've recently discovered.  

Engage in actual discussions, rather than dick-waving contests. Talk about your gaming experiences that don't crap on the user-base here. Regale us with your house-rules (you use them, right?). Talk about your campaigns and the cool characters you played. Post new monsters and spells.

In fact, do pretty much anything but continually antagonise a largely old-school board.

How hard can it be?

Dude, hate to quibble with you, and I agree with everything you wrote above in the first couple of paragraphs, but I do feel I must point out that this is not a "largely old-school board".  This is a board for talking about ALL kinds of Regular RPGs, that just happens to have an inordinate amount of old-school gamers.  We also have a few prominent members that are very productive that I think definitely wouldn't define themselves as old-school gamers, and a few who wouldn't describe themselves as D&D gamers at all.

I'm going to be perfectly clear here: I have ZERO problem with posters, old or recent, coming here and starting threads about 3.x or pathfinder (or 4e for that mattter), or any other non-oldschool Regular RPG.  We are not the Knights and Knaves alehouse or the ODD board.  We're a site for discussion about any and all RPGs that are actual regular RPGs.

I think that as long as there isn't massive Derailing of threads (in EITHER direction, be it 3e fans who come in to derail threads about old-school that weren't intended to be about how 3e is superior to old school, or old-schoolers coming in to derail threads about how Old D&D is superior to 3e... exceptions of course made for shoot-out threads that ARE explicitly for talking about that), then there's no reason why you can't have people here who don't actually play Rules Cyclopedia or OSR games (crazy deluded fools who don't know what they're missing), and who want to talk more about D20 or Pathfinder or whatever.

IF there's a problem, its with the WAY people are talking about things, and that's probably a case of there being some bad behaviour on both sides.

RPGPundit

Quote from: gleichman;578551I thought that it would be rather short, in fact it was longer than I expected and I got some surprising answers in it.

But despite being short, it still drew undeserved fire.

Of all the recent threads in question, yours was the only one I found to be over-the-top idiotic from the get-go.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578523Stop straw-manning I'm on record as not advocating all RAW all the time

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(see my sig.)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;578582You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
(see my sig.)

What exactly DO you think a "Strawman" is?

Strawman used improperly, seems to mean "You disagree with me"


The correct definition I would be eager to have explained to me.
I assume its something like "Going off on a Tangent" But I really do not know.

Quote from: Bill;578601Strawman used improperly, seems to mean "You disagree with me"


The correct definition I would be eager to have explained to me.
I assume its something like "Going off on a Tangent" But I really do not know.

Straw man just means building up a caricature or distorted version of a person's argument and attacking that rather than their actual points, or building up a fictional or distorted position, attributing it to the other side and demolishing it. Pretty much standard operating procedure in any internet debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Quote from: Bill;578601Strawman used improperly, seems to mean "You disagree with me"


The correct definition I would be eager to have explained to me.
I assume its something like "Going off on a Tangent" But I really do not know.

Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

ninja'd

Thanks for the links, I have actually heard of wikpedia. (Humor intended!)

I asked because I wanted to hear a definition filtered through you guys on this board.

Quote from: Bill;578613Thanks for the links, I have actually heard of wikpedia. (Humor intended!)

I asked because I wanted to hear a definition filtered through you guys on this board.

Well on forums it usually takes the form of taking what another poster or group of posters said, shaping it into a weaker agument, then attacking that argument. So it is like swinging a sword at a straw man.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578619Well on forums it usually takes the form of taking what another poster or group of posters said, shaping it into a weaker agument, then attacking that argument. So it is like swinging a sword at a straw man.

A Strawman should have resistance to piercing damage. Not sure about Slashing.



Is that a Strawman argument?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578619Well on forums it usually takes the form of taking what another poster or group of posters said, shaping it into a weaker agument, then attacking that argument. So it is like swinging a sword at a straw man.

Or making the claim that they said/intended something that was never said in the first place and treating that as if it were the opponent's actual argument. It could also occur when people take a part of what someone said (avoiding their actual point) and argue at that,

Quote from: RPGPundit;578563No, you wouldn't.  Not on this forum, anyways. Around here we ban people for site disruption (massive trolling, "stalking", intentional thread derailment, posting illegal material, sockpuppetry); not for disagreeing with us.

RPGPundit

This.  And this leads to one of the problems I have with people like Mistborn (and Gleichman to an extent).

Declan and BT, before they were banned, got into arguments with everyone.  But Mistborn et al either choose to ignore all those situations, and seem to have taken a position of, "If Declan is arguing against me, and Sacrosanct is arguing with me, then they're good buddies and are dogpiling me."

I think I've shown enough examples where that's not the case.

I do apologize to Gleichman because he did not say I sucked Benoit's cock (that was Mistborn, quoting Gleichman).  Gleichman only said I never stray from his side and was why he hated me.  Either way, it illustrates this victim complex these guys have.  It's like the goons who keep saying BT was a "favored son" of this site, despite nearly everyone always calling him on his shit all the time.

And now with Declan, who most of us always did the same thing to.  You don't get banned for being a dick or disagreeing or posting unpopular opinion.  You've got to really do a lot to get banned.  And this assumption that "if they aren't banned, then they are agreed with" is bullshit.

I have said this before but will do again and again:

The crowd from the Gaming Den has a curious drive towards finding and exploiting infinities and absolutes. This makes arguments indeed onerous.

The intellectual level of the other side of the argument is even below that, though, denial & anti-intellectual romanticism.

It has been a big fight of reason vs emotion, waged by carricaturedly twisted versions of each. Twisted reasoning at least has the facts on its side...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578639I do apologize to Gleichman because he did not say I sucked Benoit's cock (that was Mistborn, quoting Gleichman).

That would have been more meaningful if you had done it in the thread where you made the accusation. As it is, it sort of stands for any reading that thread in the future.

Even so, I accept the apology and ask you to reflect upon what else you may have mistaken attributed to me.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578639Gleichman only said I never stray from his side and was why he hated me.

You've given me far more reason than that. The dog-piling you do is only icing on the cake.

Quote from: beejazz;578548As for the old-school or the highway thing, you can see how much feedback the four threads on my system-in-progress got. It's unapologetically modern. Same goes for Soul Fantasy: largely constructive feedback, continuous traffic, all that good stuff.

I think a good part of the reason such threads get positive results is they are about creating a NEW game that meets your design criteria, not about redesigning D&D (or another existing game) to meet your criteria.  While I might have zero interest in playing a new game built to Denner balance and RAW standards, I have no reason to object to its creation and might even be willing to provide constructive help when I can.

However, if your stated objective is to redesign D&D (or another game I play and like as is) by changing the stuff I like about the game (that you hate) to stuff I hate but you think is great, I'm not only going to be unwilling to help you but am probably going to throw as many roadblocks in the way of changing a game I like into something I would dislike or even hate. If you don't want those roadblock style posts, they are easy to minimize:

1) State upfront that you are designing a new game with the goal of fixing the problem you have/see in the old game. This shows you recognize that others may actually like the current game as it is and that you are not going to try to change a game they like to fit your needs.

2) State the flaws you see in the old game as "problems you have with the game" or "things that make the game unfun for you" instead of stating them as facts about game X. Saying "I don't like the way 3.x is balanced and want to change that in my new game" is going to provoke far fewer arguments and "roadblock posts" than stating "The balance in D&D is objectively bad as anyone can see and needs to be changed to be balanced like I want." The latter just makes those who do not think the balance in D&D is objectively bad want to argue with you. And since you are talking about fixing the game they more or less like as is, they have no reason to help you fix the problems you see as they don't want those fixes replacing the rules currently in the game which they, unlike you, actually like.

Quote from: RandallS;578702I think a good part of the reason such threads get positive results is they are about creating a NEW game that meets your design criteria, not about redesigning D&D (or another existing game) to meet your criteria.  While I might have zero interest in playing a new game built to Denner balance and RAW standards, I have no reason to object to its creation and might even be willing to provide constructive help when I can.

However, if your stated objective is to redesign D&D (or another game I play and like as is) by changing the stuff I like about the game (that you hate) to stuff I hate but you think is great, I'm not only going to be unwilling to help you but am probably going to throw as many roadblocks in the way of changing a game I like into something I would dislike or even hate. If you don't want those roadblock style posts, they are easy to minimize:

Really once you take the context of D&D out of the equation you see that the things you like and the things I like aren't even fundamentally at odds. For example I'm designing a fantasy game where resource management is shorter term, not because I find that objectively better but because I run games with fewer fights. Many of the problems people have with D&D are based on running games that are sort of at odds with what D&D is actually for.

Quote1) State upfront that you are designing a new game with the goal of fixing the problem you have/see in the old game. This shows you recognize that others may actually like the current game as it is and that you are not going to try to change a game they like to fit your needs.

2) State the flaws you see in the old game as "problems you have with the game" or "things that make the game unfun for you" instead of stating them as facts about game X. Saying "I don't like the way 3.x is balanced and want to change that in my new game" is going to provoke far fewer arguments and "roadblock posts" than stating "The balance in D&D is objectively bad as anyone can see and needs to be changed to be balanced like I want." The latter just makes those who do not think the balance in D&D is objectively bad want to argue with you. And since you are talking about fixing the game they more or less like as is, they have no reason to help you fix the problems you see as they don't want those fixes replacing the rules currently in the game which they, unlike you, actually like.

Preachin' to the choir man. But ultimately I'm not working on my game because of the stuff I don't like. I'm making it to cram the things I like from multiple games and editions into one game.

Here are the highlights.

Quote from: RandallS;578702I have no reason to object to its creation and might even be willing to provide constructive help when I can.

Now this first part is interesting because it should hold true no matter how someone feels about DnD. Whether they think its objectively or subjectively bad you SHOULD be neutral about what they wanna do with it unless you simply disagree at which time discourse should be expected and had.

QuoteI'm not only going to be unwilling to help you but am probably going to throw as many roadblocks in the way of changing a game I like into something I would dislike or even hate. If you don't want those roadblock style posts, they are easy to minimize

Intentionally making roadblock posts SPECIFICALLY because you don't like the way someone delivered an idea is childish and moronic. There is no way to positively spin this statement and it is exactly the kind of bullying gleichman was on about. I'm in fact shocked that you would openly state your intent to do so.

Quoteshows you recognize that others may actually like the current game as it is and that you are not going to try to change a game they like to fit your needs.

This is just confusing. I do not care if someone likes/dislikes the system the exact way it is. How other people feel about something in no way impedes me from having my own opinion or expressing it in a matter I feel is appropriate. What's more is everyone changes the game to fit their needs. None of my insights on any game will have no effect of what's already written in the books that people own so having to worry about someone on the internet rewriting material for themselves when you have you own written copy is kind of ridiculous.

Quote"The balance in D&D is objectively bad as anyone can see and needs to be changed to be balanced like I want."

The thing that separates objectivity from subjectivity is proof. If I say Balance = X and that the game does not do X and have facts and experiments that show it does not do X then by that value of balance the game is not balanced. Now if you disagree you may offer up another definition of balance or show proof contrary to the proof I gave. If you cannot do either one of those then there is no argument to be had.

QuoteThe latter just makes those who do not think the balance in D&D is objectively bad want to argue with you.

Disagreeing with someone isn't inherently a bad thing. There's no reason to fear discourse.

Quote from: MGuy;578747Disagreeing with someone isn't inherently a bad thing. There's no reason to fear discourse.

The Grognards have every reason to fear discourse. Kneejerk revulsion to the game moving in a direction they dislike is most of what they bring to discussion.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578749The Grognards have every reason to fear discourse. Kneejerk revulsion to the game moving in a direction they dislike is most of what they bring to discussion.

I meant a "bad" thing. Thanks for highlighting my typo geez.

Quote from: MGuy;578750I meant a "bad" thing. Thanks for highlighting my typo geez.

Sorry about that didn't even notice.

Quote from: MGuy;578747Now this first part is interesting because it should hold true no matter how someone feels about DnD. Whether they think its objectively or subjectively bad you SHOULD be neutral about what they wanna do with it unless you simply disagree at which time discourse should be expected and had.

Nonsense. If you are talking about making changes to the rules of a game I play, i have every right to do my best to stop you if you are going to take rules I like and replace them with rules I don't like. If you are just talking about making these changes for your own table or for a variant game for other who want the changes, there is no problem. However, when you talk about changes you feel need to be made to the game itself, I and everyone else who does not want the rules of the game changed that way has every right to fight the attempts to change them

QuoteNone of my insights on any game will have no effect of what's already written in the books that people own so having to worry about someone on the internet rewriting material for themselves when you have you own written copy is kind of ridiculous.

The impression I get from denner posts is that not that they want to make changes for their house rules or a set of variant rules but that they want their changes used in future versions of the official game. As I would hate playing in a game with the type of balance you want, I have a vested interest in not supporting positions that claim the rules I like are wrong and need to be fixed in the RAW.  

I will not cut my own throat just to be open to other ideas. If you think this makes me asshole, that's fine, the denners have already said a number of times that GMs who GM as I do are assholes. If you aren't really trying to get your version of balance in the official D&D rules, then why the objection to clearly stating up front that the rules you want to work on are intended to be houserules or a variant set of rules for those who feel as you do.

As for objective proof that the rules you dislike are bad, there is no such thing in 99% of the cases.  You may be able to prove that the math does not work as intended or as you think it should or that by your definition of balance the game is not balanced, but that is still not objective proof. It may be (in the case of math) objective evidence, but it is up to those you are trying to convince to decide if the evidence is strong enough to convince them of the correctness of your position. This is especially true if they are having fun playing the way you say is objectively broken.

Quote from: RandallS;578757Nonsense. If you are talking about making changes to the rules of a game I play, i have every right to do my best to stop you if you are going to take rules I like and replace them with rules I don't like. If you are just talking about making these changes for your own table or for a variant game for other who want the changes, there is no problem. However, when you talk about changes you feel need to be made to the game itself, I and everyone else who does not want the rules of the game changed that way has every right to fight the attempts to change them

Chill man, MGuy's not a head honcho at WotC.  He's not going to irreversibly change AD&D.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578749The Grognards have every reason to fear discourse. Kneejerk revulsion to the game moving in a direction they dislike is most of what they bring to discussion.

Right now I think the "grognards" have nothing to fear because they have already seen the game hange beyond recognition under wotc. If anything they are just giving their opinions more vocally now because the makers of D&D have made an attempt to reach out to them. I don't really consider myself a grognard, but I am a person whose roots in the hobby go back to the 80s, so fair enough. My feeling is I dont care what they do with D&D. They need to do whatever they think will attract the biggest audience. So I am fine with them making 4.5 if they feel that will get more players. But since they have asked for our thoughts, I am also happy to give my opinion on what I like.

Grognards are nore not affaid of discourse. I think you are simply expecting too much out of the argumentation process here. Just because someone makes a strong argument for something, that doesn't change peoples' preferences. If wizard and fighter balance feels fine for folks in a particular edition, and you make a good argument to advance your position that wizard-fighter balance is broken in that edition that they have no solid response to....that doesn't mean you are right, it means you are a better debater than the person. A sophmoric person might adopt your position and be persuaded. Someone who has lived a little knows better than to chuck their preferences just because someone on the internet beat them in a debate.

I definitely will say you (lord mistborn and deadDM) did a very good job defending your positions. I don't think you proved anything to me though. I still think balance over the campaign is fine (even desirable), wizard fighter disparity in 2e-3e isn't that bad at all (and very manageable), that weeabo fighters are not needed at all to bring more balance to the game, 3E is pretty busted (but cam still be a very fun game), 4E is bland and gamey, and for my preferences 2E pretty much gets things just right (though I would like to see someone refine the mechanics a bit). I don't really know what you are hoping to achieve here. I guess I feel like your selling solutions I dont have much need of.

That said, I am interested in seeing what kind of game you would make using d20 as a base. Obviously you have given the mechanics a great deal of thought and if you open up a thread to start going over some design possibilities in the design subforum I would happily contribute ina constructive way based entirley on your stated design goals (instead of my own preferences).

Quote from: RandallS;578757Nonsense. If you are talking about making changes to the rules of a game I play, i have every right to do my best to stop you if you are going to take rules I like and replace them with rules I don't like. If you are just talking about making these changes for your own table or for a variant game for other who want the changes, there is no problem. However, when you talk about changes you feel need to be made to the game itself, I and everyone else who does not want the rules of the game changed that way has every right to fight the attempts to change them

So reasonable discourse goes out the window at the mere suggestion of changing what you like, got ya. That is still a childish and immature approach to take but at least you clarified.

QuoteThe impression I get from denner posts is that not that they want to make changes for their house rules or a set of variant rules but that they want their changes used in future versions of the official game. As I would hate playing in a game with the type of balance you want, I have a vested interest in not supporting positions that claim the rules I like are wrong and need to be fixed in the RAW.  

I will not cut my own throat just to be open to other ideas. If you think this makes me asshole, that's fine, the denners have already said a number of times that GMs who GM as I do are assholes. If you aren't really trying to get your version of balance in the official D&D rules, then why the objection to clearly stating up front that the rules you want to work on are intended to be houserules or a variant set of rules for those who feel as you do.

Judging  from what you've stated before I don't think you even know what my or any competing arguer's preferred balance point is or what our games are even like. You haven't taken time to actually ask. I happen to know from being at the Den that what Kaelik wants out of a given game (balance wise) is most likely different from what I want. I don't even know the other posters who fall under the "denner" term even like. I'm sure you're extending your "hate" at the idea of someone playing in a way you're not used to into hate at our perceived play styles. You being dramatic about opening your mind to other ideas (equating it to cutting your own throat) only means you're more likely to be close minded about something if it isn't delivered just right.

QuoteAs for objective proof that the rules you dislike are bad, there is no such thing in 99% of the cases.  You may be able to prove that the math does not work as intended or as you think it should or that by your definition of balance the game is not balanced, but that is still not objective proof. It may be (in the case of math) objective evidence, but it is up to those you are trying to convince to decide if the evidence is strong enough to convince them of the correctness of your position. This is especially true if they are having fun playing the way you say is objectively broken.

Notice you changed the word "balance" to "bad" before going on about proving imbalance does not equal bad. This is the root of most of the trouble I've had here. Despite the words I actually type people are filtering it in their head to mean the worst possible thing and end up arguing with me based on the notion that I am "attacking" their playstyle.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578762That said, I am interested in seeing what kind of game you would make using d20 as a base. Obviously you have given the mechanics a great deal of thought and if you open up a thread to start going over some design possibilities in the design subforum I would happily contribute ina constructive way based entirley on your stated design goals (instead of my own preferences).

I have some ideas, I've always considered writing a balanced d20 clone.
Right now I'm liking the hypothetical Traps, Lizards, and Zombies game I used in the class balance thread. I think I could hammer that into a decent beer and pretzels game.

Damn real life, always getting in the way!

Quote from: Panzerkraken;578445Goodness, and how convenient for you that he  phrased it in exactly the usual pattern of that exact fallacy.  It's  almost as though he knew he was doing it.

:jaw-dropping:

Yeah, pretty bizarre rookie mistake right out of the gates, huh?  ;)

Quote from: Kaelik;578444Refuted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)

Seriously, how hilarious that even when you get to make up the premises, you still argue in fallacies.

Ah, good.  You found someone to read these and explain them to you.

I guess the first step is to fix that one:

Premise#1:  A Magic-User who can use any spell at any time is more powerful than a Fighter.
Premise#2:  A Magic-User can use any spell at any time.
Conclusion:  A Magic-User is more powerful than a Fighter.

Ok, Vulcan Science Council, have at it.

But, what happens if the premise isn't tru--ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM.....

Quote from: MGuy;578764So reasonable discourse goes out the window at the mere suggestion of changing what you like, got ya. That is still a childish and immature approach to take but at least you clarified.

Give me an "I"!
Give me an "R"!
Give me an "O"!
Give me an "N"!
Give me a "Y"!
What's that spell?

Quote from: Doom;578812But, what happens if the premise isn't tru--ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM ASSHOLE DM.....

Shhhhh!  I want to see if their ringer can figure it out!  :)

That spells that once again, you're trying to make one thread into a different thread.  The thread you're TRYING to post into has been closed.  So if you feel that the conversation needed to continue, you should try your luck with starting a new thread.  

But for your information, nobody here has presented Premise #1 as having any factual basis.  It is clearly a false premise.  It doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong (in fact, your conclusion is correct) but this isn't really the place to discuss that.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;578817That spells that once again, you're trying to make one thread into a different thread.  The thread you're TRYING to post into has been closed.  So if you feel that the conversation needed to continue, you should try your luck with starting a new thread.  

But for your information, nobody here has presented Premise #1 as having any factual basis.  It is clearly a false premise.  It doesn't mean that your conclusion is wrong (in fact, your conclusion is correct) but this isn't really the place to discuss that.

Actually, I am just using a current discussion to demonstrate a point.  And since you aren't a moderator here, you can take your suggestion and shove it up your ass.

Because this relentless call for 'logic' from the group that absolutely refuses to adhere to it is one of the things that I noticed with the recent invasion.  It seems rather endemic to the internet as a whole, but particularly highlighted here.  The ones who scream about "logic" or "maturity" or how they are being treated are usually the ones that have no concept as to how any of those things work or how to apply them to a conversation.  Regardless of physical age, these folks are usually mired in a high school-ish mentality, and frequently display other traits of 'only child syndrome'.  Throwing a big enough fit will get them their way, for example, or considering their own (often ill-formed) opinions as irrefutable facts.

But, if you think your stalling tactics will work, I can always start another thread so you can all pitch a fit and look like sobbing little assholes over there instead.

EDIT:  Here you go, shitburger (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23938).

Touhou...now Hidamari Sketch...likes 3e.

Only one place could breed such a gamer, and I haven't been there in years.

This thread is troll bait, but I'll take it anyways.

What I learned from this is that people are stupid. Many of the locals demanded evidence, were given that evidence, and then chose to ignore it or dismiss it for increasingly illogical reasons which in turn made the entire exchange a clusterfuck.

This is the part where you all call me a Denner and insist I am a raincoat clad autist with OCD and an avian oriented bestiality fetish but I don't really identify with the Den either.

Sure they're right about Fighters sucking a giant barrel of cocks, were mostly right about the Bone Devil thing, and were right about the whole out of combat utility thing but all of those points are so simple and basic you get no points for getting them right, only stand to lose many points if you get them wrong.

When it comes to the more advanced stuff the Den fucks that up just as often, and so I'm not on either side because I hate idiots on principle and the Den is not on my level.

Everything else that has happened was very standard, particularly the parts where the weak players ran like little bitches the instant they were forced to prove their claims or say anything concrete which is why the Bone Devil conflict only lasted until first contact was made... then the party immediately suicided and the player ragequit (and later made this thread). And all over something that should have been very easy to begin with... after all, at those levels you should be fighting 2-4 or more Bone Devils at a time multiple times in a day - not just one the entire day.

Despite being the same tired foolishness I've seen many different times from many different places it was at least mildly entertaining though, so at least it had some value.

As is though every time I see an exchange like this I look at my games, the games of the people around me, then back to the exchange and cannot help but think that they wouldn't last five minutes in my games, or in any serious game really.

Quote from: Mr. GC;583212This thread is troll bait, but I'll take it anyways.

You've got 3 posts and one of 'em bumped this shit back up to the front page.

Troll bait worked.

Quote from: beejazz;583216You've got 3 posts and one of 'em bumped this shit back up to the front page.

Troll bait worked.

I think "I'll take it anyways" covered that point.

Let me guess - standard low post count = meaningless poster argument? Or can you do better?

Quote from: Mr. GC;583219I think "I'll take it anyways" covered that point.

Let me guess - standard low post count = meaningless poster argument? Or can you do better?

Allow me to step in before Spike gets here:

Entertain me, motherfucker!

Normally, I would have given average marks for the first attempt, but the post is so fucking boring, I am going to have to dock you.  3/10.

Oh, the standard rate the "troll" while standing from an implied moral and mature high ground.

Come now Storm, I knew you were one of the useless posters from observing those earlier conflicts but could you at least attempt something that isn't trite and predictable?

Or would you rather just dodge the point some more?

You have one more chance to say something of substantive value. Do not disappoint me.

Creating a sock to continue this is so weaksauce.

Quote from: Mr. GC;583219I think "I'll take it anyways" covered that point.

Let me guess - standard low post count = meaningless poster argument? Or can you do better?

As of that post is was 33% of everything you ever said. More than that if we count by word or character. You can bitch about first impressions mattering, but they do.

But sure, if you want more: Your post was void of content, addressed a dead thread no one was interested in continuing, and did so in a deliberately inflammatory manner. If I actually have to explain to you why that looks like trolling, you must be very stupid. I don't buy that, of course. I'm still pretty sure you're just trolling here.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;583223Creating a sock to continue this is so weaksauce.

Sockpuppet? That's hilarious. I'm not Lord Mistborn, Frank, Kaelik, or any of the other Denners.

So anyone care to address my actual points or will the responses just be more of this foolishness?

Quote from: Mr. GC;583226So anyone care to address my actual points or will the responses just be more of this foolishness?

Quote from: Mr. GC;583212This is the part where you all call me a Denner and insist I am a raincoat clad autist with OCD and an avian oriented bestiality fetish but I don't really identify with the Den either.

...

When it comes to the more advanced stuff the Den fucks that up just as often, and so I'm not on either side because I hate idiots on principle and the Den is not on my level.

...

Despite being the same tired foolishness I've seen many different times from many different places it was at least mildly entertaining though, so at least it had some value.

Are not points. Have nothing to do with gaming. Are barely even about gaming in the meta sense. I cut some shit, but they were assertions. No premise. No conclusion. No argument. Which is why no one even cares enough to address them.

Also, it's been over a month. People on both sides of the argument are plain old done with that shit and no one is interested in what you have to say on the topic until you say anything interesting.

Out for now.

Quote from: Mr. GC;583226Sockpuppet? That's hilarious. I'm not Lord Mistborn, Frank, Kaelik, or any of the other Denners.

So anyone care to address my actual points or will the responses just be more of this foolishness?

Sorry, you can't come in here and say this:

QuoteWhat I learned from this is that people are stupid. Many of the locals demanded evidence, were given that evidence, and then chose to ignore it or dismiss it for increasingly illogical reasons which in turn made the entire exchange a clusterfuck.

and then try to claim some sort of moral high ground MGuy.  That statement shows that you're either blind (because half a dozen posters here kept showing actual page #s and references to the Denners that showed them how and why they were wrong) or just plain stupid, in which case no one is going to waste their time on someone so blatantly trolling.

Quote from: beejazz;583229Are not points. Have nothing to do with gaming. Are barely even about gaming in the meta sense. I cut some shit, but they were assertions. No premise. No conclusion. No argument. Which is why no one even cares enough to address them.

Of course those aren't points, you deliberately cut the points out of that post and then said that I made no points.

I see that I am being too subtle here, so allow me to spell it out for you:

Why is it regarded as acceptable that a class that does nothing but fight poorly exists?
Why is it regarded as acceptable that when people are given a chance to prove their claims they do everything possible to weasel out of doing so, and then claim victory in a new thread?
Why is it regarded as acceptable that certain people here pointedly avoid saying anything of substance or anything concrete because the instant they do, they know that they will be wrong and called on it?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;583230and then try to claim some sort of moral high ground MGuy.  That statement shows that you're either blind (because half a dozen posters here kept showing actual page #s and references to the Denners that showed them how and why they were wrong) or just plain stupid, in which case no one is going to waste their time on someone so blatantly trolling.

1: Not MGuy, perhaps you weren't listening when I said I wasn't any of the other Denners? Perhaps you conveniently ignored that I don't even identify with the Den because they're not on my level? You know, like you don't listen to everything else that does not support your viewpoint?
2: I'm not trying to claim any moral high ground, I'm simply mocking those that are making that claim in a hypocritical manner.

Quote from: Mr. GC;583222Come now Storm, I knew you were one of the useless posters from observing those earlier conflicts but could you at least attempt something that isn't trite and predictable?

Only from the point of view that defines 'success' as the people I was addressing stammering out poorly understood rules and utterly failing to present any solid arguments for their conclusions other than 'because spells'.  Particularly stupid in light of constantly failing to grasp even the basics of how spells and spellcasting works in 3.x, let alone any other version of D&D.

By that definition, they succeeded brilliantly.

Now, go pretend to be the young Turk out to make a name for himself elsewhere, please.  After the incursion and subsequent desertion by the Denners, it's just boring.

Quote from: StormBringer;583240Only from the point of view that defines 'success' as the people I was addressing stammering out poorly understood rules and utterly failing to present any solid arguments for their conclusions other than 'because spells'.  Particularly stupid in light of constantly failing to grasp even the basics of how spells and spellcasting works in 3.x, let alone any other version of D&D.

By that definition, they succeeded brilliantly.

Now, go pretend to be the young Turk out to make a name for himself elsewhere, please.  After the incursion and subsequent desertion by the Denners, it's just boring.

They were a lot closer to correct than the locals, therefore they won.

Deal with it.

That is unless you can prove me wrong both on the count of "Storm is a useless poster" and "the Den, while often wrong about advanced points still gets the basics right" and show me exactly how and where they fucked up on spells?

Quote from: Mr. GC;583235Why is it regarded as acceptable that a class that does nothing but fight poorly exists?

Because you are completely wrong about this until you present something other than positive assertions, and sock-puppeting is a bannable offence around here.

Quote from: Mr. GC;583241They were a lot closer to correct than the locals, therefore they won.

1. Nobody fucking won in that thread.  Everyone was a loser.
2. You keep saying you aren't siding with the Denners but keep ignoring all of those posts where the people they argued with were actually posting passages out of books that showed how and why their interpretation of the rules was wrong.  So I don't buy it.

QuoteDeal with it.

Indeed.

Quote from: StormBringer;583242Because you are completely wrong about this until you present something other than positive assertions, and sock-puppeting is a bannable offence around here.

Get real. Every board except this one has figured out Fighters suck, even the ones that tend to get everything else wrong.

You might as well have said there is no proof the sky is blue. And there's really nothing to say to that other than look at it.

I also noticed that I invited you to objectively prove your claims and you instead shifted gears and went at something else entirely. So you're done. Anyone else?

We're not going round that mulberry bush again folks.

Who cares who 'won'.

Closed.