Fuck 'ad hominem'. I KNOW he was a whiny bitch. Ask Old Geezer, Rob Kuntz, others from those days. Christ, why do I even answer to that bullshit? /move on.

Quote from: Benoist;540117Fuck 'ad hominem'. I KNOW he was a whiny bitch. Ask Old Geezer, Rob Kuntz, others from those days. Christ, why do I even answer to that bullshit? /move on.

So either a person of your education and intelligence has nothing substantive to contribute, or you could contribute something worthwhile, but deliberately choose not to.

It's unfortunate either way.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;540118So either a person of your education and intelligence has nothing substantive to contribute, or you could contribute something worthwhile, but deliberately choose not to.

It's unfortunate either way.

No. It's more that I've said my piece, which I actually know from primary sources, and you just can't get over that fact to then engage in forum debate bullshit. Fuck you and the  horse you rode on, dude.

Quote from: Benoist;540119No. It's more that I've said my piece, which I actually know from primary sources, and you just can't get over that fact to then engage in forum debate bullshit. Fuck you and the horse you rode on, dude.

I believe you have once again misunderstood my points.

The first is:

Poor DM's can be as big a problem at the gaming table as poor players.

Which is true (no matter what William's virtues or failings may be).

The second is:

You are choosing to engage in name calling rather than substantive discussion.

This is regrettable, because I know you could contribute something, but would rather swear instead. Why?

The problem is you cant fix the gm from hell with more rules and minute clarifications.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;540121Poor DM's can be as big a problem at the gaming table as poor players.

What would be considered a poor DM during the 3.x/d20 era?

(Besides a DM that doesn't show up at all to the game).

Quote from: ggroy;540123What would be considered a poor DM during the 3.x/d20 era?

(Besides a DM that doesn't show up at all to the game).

One that's unable to set limits and just say no. 4e is the result of this, it's like Dnd with training wheels it's hard to be allowed or make a truly bad decision in the game either as a DM or player. Whether that's a good or bad thing is for you to decide.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;540122The problem is you cant fix the gm from hell with more rules and minute clarifications.

You're correct, in part. It depends on what kind of bad GM you're dealing with. There are many varieties, and several of them such rules wouldn't help.

Dicks are dicks, no matter the game. If they're out to screw you over, the only solution that I can think of is to just move on.

Some GM's aren't adept at devising rules on-the-fly, or adjudicating poorly-written or conflicting rules at the game table, so clearly-written and internally consistent rules can actually help them.

(In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that poorly written, conflicting, or vague rules are an obstacle to all GM's. Some are more adept at dealing with them than others, thus how much of an obstacle they are varies from trivial to "I can't run this".)

I prefer clearly written rules that allow me maximal flexibility, because that's how I roll. (I like to learn how a game is intended to be run, then modify it to more closely match my own tastes.) That's not optimal for everyone.

Quote from: ggroy;540123What would be considered a poor DM during the 3.x/d20 era?

Same as any other. Dick, adversarial, arbitrary and capricious, Mary Sue NPC's, mumbles, no prep, hasn't read the rules, deliberately TPK's, makes creepy come-ons to players, creates reams of unplayable house rules, rants about things instead of running the game, favoritism, major psychological issues, bad personal hygiene, creepy or offensive subject matter in the game, etc. etc. ...

(Though, to be fair, players can evince most of these problems as well. The solution to most of these, player or DM, is simple: "Don't play with that asshole." For the one or two that are due to simple inexperience, be patient and offer advice. Or don't play with that novice.)

Am I missing something in the question, because those seem fairly obvious.

"Will I succeed before I act?"

... is what I get from much of this talk relating to the new school approach. IMO this doesn't emulate the variables that come with "heat of the moment" decision making, or guesstimates made during an unplanned conflict. The battle hasn't been rehearsed, it isn't the result of trial and error choreography. There's too much unpredictability occurring within real time conflict, for it to be predictable.

Quote from: deMonica;540131"Will I succeed before I act?"

... is what I get from much of this talk relating to the new school approach.

So, you think that this is a coherent design principle across many recent games? That something like ORE is intended to lessen uncertainty?

Which ones? How do they accomplish it? How does this manifest?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;540129Am I missing something in the question, because those seem fairly obvious.

I was thinking whether there exists any crappy DM practices which are unique to 3.x/d20/4E era, but which were absent during the TSR era.

Quote from: ggroy;540134I was thinking whether there exists any crappy DM practices which are unique to 3.x/d20/4E era, but which were absent during the TSR era.

Gotcha. I have no idea.

Quote from: deMonica;540131"Will I succeed before I act?"

... is what I get from much of this talk relating to the new school approach. IMO this doesn't emulate the variables that come with "heat of the moment" decision making, or guesstimates made during an unplanned conflict. The battle hasn't been rehearsed, it isn't the result of trial and error choreography. There's too much unpredictability occurring within real time conflict, for it to be predictable.

I should clarify, that I see and attribute this more to new school D&D'ers (3.x / PF / 4.0)

Quote from: ggroy;540134I was thinking whether there exists any crappy DM practices which are unique to 3.x/d20/4E era, but which were absent during the TSR era.

Maybe use of player knowledge/skill to resolve actions, instead of a character skill check. Its not crappy if there is no skill system, or if its vague, but in the context of 3.x it becomes bad practice because many skills become pointless if you're going to let people roleplay through them instead (Diplomacy). Or, tasks become more difficult because you have to do both: finding something requiring you to both say you search the dead guy's pants and make a Search check.