Quote from: One Horse Town;361634How many Dustin Hoffmans have we got here?

It's a fucking Rain Man convention.

I think we should introduce the [Rain Man] tag for certain threads to warn the innocent.

Maybe a little smiliey of an Assburger.

Quote from: Werekoala;361638Maybe a little smiliey of an Assburger.

Sadly, Brett won't let us.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361626I notice you guys are unable to address the topic! Are you to here to fight for conformity and stamp out dissent or actually to talk about games?

Quote from: StormBringer;361627See?  Comedy fucking gold.

Yup, absolutely comedy gold.  

Abby is the new CavScout of this place.

Quote from: Shazbot79;361573Don't worry...you'll be fine as long as your palm flower hasn't turned black.

I'll be fine no matter what.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361574No I agree that people have played monopoly don't get me wrong. But how often do you play monopoly? Once a year ? Twice a year? Does the number of units sold actually equate to any ammount of real play. Has an aunt ever given you a set of Delux Monopoly as a great birthday gift and you never even opened the box cos you have a perfectly good set already?  How many sets of Monopoly are like those DVD sets of 'Great Superhero Movies' or 'SciFi Classics' that your sister/cousin/neice gets you for Christmass that you never even take out of the celophane becuase you have seen all the movies already a dozen times and you already have DVDs of the ones you want to rewatch?
I really do have 5 scrabble sets. 2 I have used once 1 not at all. When you play games people get you games as gifts but they don't check out the Fantasy Flight Catalogue online they go to WH Smiths or Toys R Us (Arguably another good case for box sets perhaps...) and those games are priced right they don;t cost £50 a pop

In a way I agree with you. They do make good gifts, for all the reasons you state. I don't think many people get as many copies of games as you do, and when I was still married we played "family" games quite often. They work with a wide variety of age groups and are fun for everyone, and they are above all, familiar. The Monopoly my mother used to crush me with is the same game I've played with my ex, and friends, and one day my son. It's the same one I played with my grandmother when I was young myself. I think that's the point being made.

Quote from: One Horse Town;361639Sadly, Brett won't let us.

Just for the record, "assburgers" is what I hear in my mind when people mention that not-disorder, and I'm immediately transported into an Opus-centric "Bloom County" universe where he is mishearing everything in a conversation (vis "Prayer pimples for hairy fishnuts?"). This is no doubt an indication of some type of mental disorder in itself.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361578Actually it's only like 4 borderline retarded guys on a single website that give me a hard time, but I notice they seem to have a hard time with a lot of people. So it's not just me.

Anyhow, the DM in question here, was teaching new players, so I think that nuance might have been lost. When you teach a new player the easiest thing you can teach is the rules.

Certainly it would have been easier to say "It doesn't actually have any effect because all it does is create purple light.." but if you can show "this power is normally used on creatures- see the creature keyword?" that is just as valid. Equally valid is saying "it needs the fire keyword.." but it's easier to show something that is there than something that isn't.

Really, it's all just a huge corner case. I just love the moments when I see you guys argue with spittle-flecked vehemence about something and then suddenly reverse yourselves and argue the exact opposite.

Firstly, I don't really agree that pointing out the "creature" bit is better to explain the limits of the power because it sets a precedent that will be a point of confusion for true newbies later on.

Also, none of that changes the fact that you inaccurately characterized someone else's argument.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361635But if the real problem is you have some kind of problem with me being here...

I have a problem with how you behave here, Ophelia.  Lot's of people do -- that's what made your earlier remark so funny.  And that's why I mock you every time you start maundering about how 4e haters stalk you, just like 3e haters used to stalk you.  Because it's you, dickless, not your game.

Quote from: One Horse Town;361634How many Dustin Hoffmans have we got here?

It's a fucking Rain Man convention.

I'm an excellent driver, Dan.

!i!

AM was a fairly tolerable, even decently contributive, poster in the 3E days.

If I accept your premise as correct, that he muttered about 3E haters in those days as he does go on about here, then I humbly suggest he not return for another three years or so, when his persecution complex once again returns to tolerable levels.

Simple solutions to complex problems. Thats my motto.

Well. After:

KNEEL BEFORE ZOD

Which, as you all well know is only a distant second to

"Entertain Me, Motherfuckers"


Yes, this thread IS all about me, why do you ask?

I may have asked this before, but who would you rather be Batman or Tarzan, and why?

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361618Because you shifted your argument for the sake of argument alone?

No. What you perceive as my "shifting my argument" is just your inability to read and follow a thread.

Seanchia

Quote from: Sigmund;361656Firstly, I don't really agree that pointing out the "creature" bit is better to explain the limits of the power because it sets a precedent that will be a point of confusion for true newbies later on.

The folks in this demo either a) already know how to play or b) are never going to play again after they finish the demo. Perkins isn't setting any kind of precedent.

Seanchai

it's Batman for you then? I'm more inclined towards Tarzan, myself.

Quote from: Sigmund;361149In a way I agree with ya, and in a way I don't. When I talk about being able to use magic more often in 4e it's not the at-will magic missiles I'm referring to. I liked that I could use Mage Hand and Prestidigitation to do "magic stuff" all the time. Chill my drink in the pub, pull a chair over to myself with my mind, pass someone the salt by pointing at it... that stuff is fun.

What I don't like about that is that from this point of view a 1st level wizard and a 30th level wizard can do exactly the same things. I admit, I'm not 100% sure, I'm not a big 4e expert, maybe there are feats and PP/ED that add options to those non-combat "at will" maybe there are other cantrips you can pick up in other source-books, but from what I remember those "cantrips" make no difference between the level of the caster. I liked it better in previous edition, if a experienced wizard wanted a permanent mage hand, for example, he could make one, researching a new spell with a 24 hour duration (or day/level), or crafting a magic item that allow him to cast the spell "at will", or a number of other ways, this make the ability to use mage hand or prestidigitation or other low level spells any time you need/want it, much more satisfying to my eyes that having an ability that remain the same for 30 levels because it is something you someway earned for yourself.

FWIW, I don't think any other cantrips have been introduced..

... yet. (good thing or bad thing? You could easily introduce new ones I guess).

The essentials line is still 4E and is (reportedly) going to have a lot of new stuff. What I suspect is certain builds are going to go away entirely. I don't see the ranged archer build for the ranger lasting much longer now that the marauder and hunter builds appeared in MP2.