Quote from: Sommerjon;598598That isn't true.
His ethos is in direct conflict with your concept of roleplaying games.

You mean games where you roleplay a character? Yes, yes they were.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;598553It's as if I had been told that I could only discuss open tables in a single thread; or if Benoist had been told he could only discuss megadungeons in a single thread; or if RPGPundit was told he could only use the term "swine" in a single thread.

I imagine if you start calling people intellectually dishonest for not having an open table, or if Benoist starts claiming that people who don't use megadungeons aren't really playing D&D, that's exactly what might happen. Having strange opinions is one thing, being a nob about it is another.

I suspect if GC knows you're the one sticking up for him it would enrage him further ;-) but there you go!

Quote from: Justin Alexander;598553It's as if I had been told that I could only discuss open tables in a single thread; or if Benoist had been told he could only discuss megadungeons in a single thread; or if RPGPundit was told he could only use the term "swine" in a single thread.

I beg to differ.  It wasn't that anyone was being unreasonably restricted, it's that there were approximately two topics that every thread was being twisted around to, and one of those was a sub-topic of the other.  Additionally, it was presented as the only correct method of play and anything that deviated, no matter how slightly, was absolutely badwrong; not only that, they were actually bad people because of it.  I tend to default to a context of AD&D and other Vintage Games: that's kind of my gig.  But I don't try to wrench every single conversation back around to how much better AD&D is and anyone that plays differently is a loser and a bad person.  The same applies with you and open tables or 3.x; you and I have certainly had our differences, quite vehement ones as well.  I don't think your playstyle is objectively invalid or that you are a bad person because you prefer 3.x or open tables, nor do I assume you think I am a bad person with an invalid playstyle because I don't share your preferences.

Pretty much everyone else here will address the topic of "Attack charts vs THAC0 vs BAB" on the merits of those aspects.  It will certainly get heated, and there will be arguments about which aspect is better than the others.  I have faith that all of us understand we are talking about our own preferences, even when couched in absolutes.  Aside from being provocative or controversial, I believe no one here really thinks in those absolutes (incidentally, one of the best reasons to stay here for me).  I also don't have to worry about you bringing up BAB being used at open tables because everyone else is stupid and can't possibly engage in your level of open table play.

It was more like a slow train coming.  Everyone on this board gave him opportunity after opportunity; second, third, fourth, fifth chances; provided hints and suggestions how to proceed; and endlessly pointed out that the entire rest of the world can't possibly be wrong about something.  I have argued with Pundit and every mod here.  I am not worried they are going to ban me because we disagree.  If I continue actions that any of them call out as 'disruptive', the removal from this community is on me.  As long as I have been here, the only bans have been for people that do exactly that.  Some of those were people I like, and it was regrettable they went that far.  Others I was indifferent or didn't care for; obviously I didn't feel too badly about those.  I didn't particularly think the banning was out of line in any of the cases that I recall.  I certainly don't find this inappropriate either, and not because I don't like the poster.

Quote from: greyknight;598606I imagine if you start calling people  intellectually dishonest for not having an open table, or if Benoist  starts claiming that people who don't use megadungeons aren't really  playing D&D, that's exactly what might happen. Having strange  opinions is one thing, being a nob about it is another.

I suspect if GC knows you're the one sticking up for him it would enrage him further ;-) but there you go!

I guess I could have been this concise, but I wasn't because fuck you.  

Quote from: greyknight;598606I imagine if you start calling people intellectually dishonest for not having an open table, or if Benoist starts claiming that people who don't use megadungeons aren't really playing D&D, that's exactly what might happen. Having strange opinions is one thing, being a nob about it is another.

I suspect if GC knows you're the one sticking up for him it would enrage him further ;-) but there you go!

I guess I could have been this concise, but I wasn't because fuck you.  

Well I'm a little disappointed as to the end of the thread then -not surprised given that GC'd already been banned from the Den even.
 
We could never have learned anything useful from this, but I'd just wanted to see how over the top his standard adventuring day's encounters were so there could be a good argument over it. Ah well.

Pundit explained the banning in the thread it occured in, but it was for site disruption, not for simply being off topic or having a particular point of view. He was certainly free to advance the position that people who are not optimizing are basketweavers, or whatever position it is he held. The problem was he kept turning mulitple threads into that conversation and was clearly doing it to stir stuff up.

Personally I think pundit gave the guy more than enough chances and was quite reasonable. And pundit wasn't after blood. We want diverse viewpoints here. This isnt about stomping people who disagree with others on the site or with the mods. I actually think the guy was occassionally making some solid points. There is a tendancy to dismiss optimizers completely here and it would have been nice to see someone arguing that point of view. The issue here was disruption to the site.

Since GC seems to be out of the picture, and people have gone to the trouble of making characters, I'd be glad to run them through a few encounters, seeing how they fare in a short scenario intended to provide a high level of challenge.  To give them a fair "typical adventuring day", I'd use the following rules when building the encounters:

1.) The "monster roster" would initially be randomly generated using a commercially-available dungeon random encounter table.  (The table will be secret from the players, but I'll identify it to anyone who asks:  Just PM me.)

2.) The overall difficulty level of each encounter would be consistent with the normal distribution expected at such a level (some easy, some standard, some hard).  I'm not ruling out encounters that the party would be wise to just avoid or escape:  Each encounter's difficulty will be chosen by the dice...

3.) Traps, twists, and puzzles would be added in a way that adds tactical complexity to combats or otherwise might be interesting and or amusingly wicked.  Before we proceed, I will request that another GM on these boards evaluate them for fairness.

4.) At least one area will include environmental effects or a room layout that works against the party and increases the challenge.  

My preferred model for this:  Firm but fair.  I will challenge your ability to survive, not softballing anything.  I'm not a killer GM by nature, but I have written a few brutal encounters over the years.  

It may not be quite the challenge we originally envisioned (since I'm not out to prove the characters can't survive, just challenge them), but does this appeal to you guys?

OK, sounds good...

My characters are ready to go if you're willing to put up with the current formatting (my character sheets are normally like this - I tend to calculate totals and things on the fly for skills and such). I can try to reformat them to the mythweavers format if you'd prefer, though.

Quote from: TristramEvans;598601You mean games where you roleplay a character? Yes, yes they were.

He talked about roleplaying.  We have no idea if his vision of roleplaying is equal to yours, so why condemn the man for something you have no earthly idea is close or far apart?

Quote from: Sir Wulf;598648Since GC seems to be out of the picture, and people have gone to the trouble of making characters, I'd be glad to run them through a few encounters, seeing how they fare in a short scenario intended to provide a high level of challenge.  To give them a fair "typical adventuring day", I'd use the following rules when building the encounters:

1.) The "monster roster" would initially be randomly generated using a commercially-available dungeon random encounter table.  (The table will be secret from the players, but I'll identify it to anyone who asks:  Just PM me.)

2.) The overall difficulty level of each encounter would be consistent with the normal distribution expected at such a level (some easy, some standard, some hard).  I'm not ruling out encounters that the party would be wise to just avoid or escape:  Each encounter's difficulty will be chosen by the dice...

3.) Traps, twists, and puzzles would be added in a way that adds tactical complexity to combats or otherwise might be interesting and or amusingly wicked.  Before we proceed, I will request that another GM on these boards evaluate them for fairness.

4.) At least one area will include environmental effects or a room layout that works against the party and increases the challenge.  

My preferred model for this:  Firm but fair.  I will challenge your ability to survive, not softballing anything.  I'm not a killer GM by nature, but I have written a few brutal encounters over the years.  

It may not be quite the challenge we originally envisioned (since I'm not out to prove the characters can't survive, just challenge them), but does this appeal to you guys?

After that is done, I would gladly do the same thing with 1st Edition AD&D rules for the comparison.

Quote from: Sommerjon;598682He talked about roleplaying.  We have no idea if his vision of roleplaying is equal to yours, so why condemn the man for something you have no earthly idea is close or far apart?

Dude.  You're reaching.  Everyone here pretty much knows GC's brand of roleplaying is:

* Only play these particular classes, and they have to be built exactly as such...
* Throw them in an arena to fight these monsters


He has literally said that anything not directly involved in beating monster X isn't playing the game.  What every other role-player calls role-playing, he calls magical tea party catering to gimps.


I think you should probably stop trying to revise his position for the sake of whatever it is you think you're doing.

I have had at least two good friends that care little for roleplay but give it lip service. They enjoy the tactics of combat in rpgs.

I personally care ten times as much about the roleplay as the combat, but they are good people that just don't care about roleplay.

I did get pissed once when one of these guys started naming dnd characters 'moe, larry, and curly'


Even I have limits on what I can tolerate

Quote from: Sir Wulf;5986483.) Traps, twists, and puzzles would be added in a way that adds tactical complexity to combats or otherwise might be interesting and or amusingly wicked.  Before we proceed, I will request that another GM on these boards evaluate them for fairness.

As an interested spectator, I'd be happy to review these for fairness.

Preparing for this last night, I discovered that the books I had in mind did not actually have their monsters arranged into random encounter tables.  I used the following procedure to populate my roster of potential monsters:  

1.) I randomly determined from which "dungeon level" each of the monsters would be drawn, using my old AD&D DMG.  This determined which EL I would look under when choosing each beastie.

2.) Taking two widely used books of monsters (the 3.5 Monster Manual and one other), I generated a percentile and counted down the list of creatures arranged by EL.  (An example:  When the DMG indicated that an EL 4 creature would be encountered, I rolled a "37".  I then looked for the 37th creature in the combined EL 4 lists of the two books.)

3.) This gave me a roster of ten creatures, with which I will populate the adventure.  I will not place them randomly, instead developing an appropriate plot and thematic elements.  I will not be using all of these creatures:  They are just the options from which I may choose.  If I were to use them all, the adventure would become nonsensical.

3.) Encounter difficulty levels were also rolled randomly, using the proportions discussed by Jason Alexander earlier in the thread.  I'll use these in the order they were generated.

4.) To structure the adventure, I chose two plots randomly from the "Big List of RPG Plots".  I will combine elements of these to frame out the scenario, so that it makes sense (...instead of running a bunch of random encounters).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;598855Dude.  You're reaching.  Everyone here pretty much knows GC's brand of roleplaying is:

* Only play these particular classes, and they have to be built exactly as such...
* Throw them in an arena to fight these monsters

And like I said his playstyle is different so it has to be wrong?  We have no earthly idea how he roleplayed and since this thread never got to that stage we will never know.  But to shit on someone who cannot respond is so the adult thing to do right?  Isn't that one of the typical defense shields that people here use,  "I play with adults I don't know about you"

Quote from: Sacrosanct;598855He has literally said that anything not directly involved in beating monster X isn't playing the game.  What every other role-player calls role-playing, he calls magical tea party catering to gimps.

No that wasn't his stance.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;598855I think you should probably stop trying to revise his position for the sake of whatever it is you think you're doing.

So you can continue taking pot shots at someone no longer here to make yourselves feel better?  So typically gamer of you.