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.

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?