Let's just ignore the part about assuming that in a game session, the DM just stops the world for you to rest after every encounter or whenever else you want (a sign of a shitty DM), which alone invalidates 90% of the Denner's supporting points.

Let's go back to the original topic.  A session of D&D is meant to be fun for everyone.  Some people like playing rogues.  Or fighters.  Or clerics.  Or Wizards.  Or halfling assassins.  Or whatever.  That's the archetype that they want to play.  Everyone, when making their characters, is going to try to make them as competent as possible.  With many editions, that comes down to luck of the rolls since classes are prepackaged with little customization.

If you've got a player who happened to get higher rolls and was able to play a paladin or ranger, or a player who knows all the 3e splat books by heart and loopholes and exploits to min/max their character, and that character looks at all the other players and tells them they're losers for being too dumb to build the same?

You're a dick.  There's no roundabout to it.  If you think the party should cater to your whim, you're a dick.  If you expect everyone else to sacrifice their fun and play to you, but you refuse to do the same, you're a dick.  If you view yourself as the winner because you could get past an encounter more often than other players and view it as some sort of competition, you're a dick.

It's the DMs job to help ensure that players are able to play the archetype they want and to keep everyone engaged.  Not to bow to the whim of a min/max selfish player.  It's a social game, where the expectation is for everyone to have fun.  If you care less about people having fun and only care about you having the most powerful character?  Not only are you a dick, but you're a blight to the community because you're spitting on the spirit of the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585777It could be three rounds, it could be ten rounds, depending on his armor, dex and luck. But the first level wizard basically has one round is the point. In fact i just played a 1st level wizard in a new 1E campaign. First session i cast my one spell on first round of an encounter, while my party continued to be effective for two or three more encounters.

You should have rested after 1 round.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585777It could be three rounds, it could be ten rounds, depending on his armor, dex and luck. But the first level wizard basically has one round is the point. In fact i just played a 1st level wizard in a new 1E campaign. First session i cast my one spell on first round of an encounter, while my party continued to be effective for two or three more encounters.

I think the point was that the LUCK bit is a huge factor in low level D&D.

Quote from: jibbajibba;585783I think the point was that the LUCK bit is a huge factor in low level D&D.

Luck is a factor. But even accounting for luck, the fighter has an edge on survivability and usefulness over the wizard in those early levels. I think this is pretty obvious to anyone who has played first through fourth level wizards and fighters in AD&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585779Let's just ignore the part about assuming that in a game session, the DM just stops the world for you to rest after every encounter or whenever else you want (a sign of a shitty DM), which alone invalidates 90% of the Denner's supporting points.

Let's go back to the original topic.  A session of D&D is meant to be fun for everyone.  Some people like playing rogues.  Or fighters.  Or clerics.  Or Wizards.  Or halfling assassins.  Or whatever.  That's the archetype that they want to play.  Everyone, when making their characters, is going to try to make them as competent as possible.  With many editions, that comes down to luck of the rolls since classes are prepackaged with little customization.

If you've got a player who happened to get higher rolls and was able to play a paladin or ranger, or a player who knows all the 3e splat books by heart and loopholes and exploits to min/max their character, and that character looks at all the other players and tells them they're losers for being too dumb to build the same?

You're a dick.  There's no roundabout to it.  If you think the party should cater to your whim, you're a dick.  If you expect everyone else to sacrifice their fun and play to you, but you refuse to do the same, you're a dick.  If you view yourself as the winner because you could get past an encounter more often than other players and view it as some sort of competition, you're a dick.

It's the DMs job to help ensure that players are able to play the archetype they want and to keep everyone engaged.  Not to bow to the whim of a min/max selfish player.  It's a social game, where the expectation is for everyone to have fun.  If you care less about people having fun and only care about you having the most powerful character?  Not only are you a dick, but you're a blight to the community because you're spitting on the spirit of the game.

All that is true.

The question that is bound to come up again is does the design of the game do anything to try and remove that poor play style or does it actually encourage it?
I think 3e encourages it. I think 1e could do more to counter it. Good rolls leading to tougher classes for example is a feedback loop that doesn't really help all the players feel equally valued. A good DM can take care of it but the game doesn't come with a good DM out of the box.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;585785Luck is a factor. But even accounting for luck, the fighter has an edge on survivability and usefulness over the wizard in those early levels. I think this is pretty obvious to anyone who has played first through fourth level wizards and fighters in AD&D.

Of course. But I was just saying that the arguement you presentsounded a bit like the Wizard has one shot to play then they need to back off whilst the fighter can keep going all day. Well the figther can't do that if he engages in actual fighting any more than the wizard can do that if he engages in actually casting spells. Both of them have a resource pool that they use up. Eeking out that resource pool is part of play.
The party are much more likely to continue if the wizard has used his only spell than if the Fighter is down to 1 HP.

And we're derailed again... Next I'll be expected to accept that waiting for opposing N/PCs to die of acute myocardial infarctions, or badgering the table into quitting wholesale, is the correct way to win D&D. Oh wait, my bad, we already saw that too.
:banghead:

Where's One Horse Town's eye roll when you need it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585779Let's go back to the original topic.  A session of D&D is meant to be fun for everyone.  Some people like playing rogues.  Or fighters.  Or clerics.  Or Wizards.  Or halfling assassins.  Or whatever.  That's the archetype that they want to play.  Everyone, when making their characters, is going to try to make them as competent as possible.  With many editions, that comes down to luck of the rolls since classes are prepackaged with little customization.

If you've got a player who happened to get higher rolls and was able to play a paladin or ranger, or a player who knows all the 3e splat books by heart and loopholes and exploits to min/max their character, and that character looks at all the other players and tells them they're losers for being too dumb to build the same?

You're a dick.  There's no roundabout to it.  If you think the party should cater to your whim, you're a dick.  If you expect everyone else to sacrifice their fun and play to you, but you refuse to do the same, you're a dick.  If you view yourself as the winner because you could get past an encounter more often than other players and view it as some sort of competition, you're a dick.

Yeah, sure.

And if you've deliberately made an ineffective character and tell the other players that they're 'roll-players and not role-players', you're a dick.  If you think the party should cater to your whim, but you refuse to do the same, you're a dick.  

Look, I understand your OP was a bit of a rant - presumably about something that actually happened with some smug 'winner' pointing out how he or she didn't need the party to defeat a particular encounter.  I wasn't there, so I won't judge.  To be fair, it's nice to give someone some accolades when they 'win'.  If the charging fighter crits with a lance and takes out a difficult opponent in a single hit, let him brag a little.  Give him some congratulations.  Or if the wizard uses a spell in a smart way and turns a difficult encounter into a cake walk, they deserve some recognition.  That's part of having fun.  But if someone is shitting on someone else's fun, some accomodation needs to be made.  But it's not a one-way street.  The ineffective character should try to be a more effective character if that's more fun for the group.  

Pinning the 'problem-player' based on your rant is impossible, but both players - the one who was shown up and the one that did the showing up - should look hard at what happened and ask themselves if they can change their behavior to help make the game fun for everyone.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585755Hey look, it can make empty and useless posts...

Oh wait, I'm not surprised. It's just more of the same dodging from the bad players.

"I'm not a bad player, you are!  You... you... you 'it'!"
Man, I thought the board had some kind of age verification to keep the junior high kids from reading all our naughty words.

QuoteSomeone that refuses to make an adventurer that can adventure, then tries to adventure anyways while knowing they cannot keep up is a dick. If you didn't tell them, then it might be on you, but otherwise play will go like this:

In other words, they don't make a character that can 'win' D&D.  Yeah, Sacrosanct started this thread about people like you.  Go step in front of a bus, I doubt you're any less of a douchebag when you are away from the internet.

QuoteWorthless character dies in under a round.

Worthless player bitches on internet because no one invites them to game any more in under a round.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585795The ineffective character should try to be a more effective character if that's more fun for the group.  

And they shitty douchebag player should stop interrupting the games of people with social skills.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585795The ineffective character should try to be a more effective character if that's more fun for the group.  

And they shitty douchebag player should stop interrupting the games of people with social skills.

Quote from: jibbajibba;585783I think the point was that the LUCK bit is a huge factor in low level D&D.

Luck is the result of proper planning.

Quote from: ArtemisAlpha;585744You really can tell 3.x players just by how they post. I wasn't expecting that, but there it is. Of course, the 1st ed players here likely look at my recently refound love for 2nd ed with similar amounts of scorn and amusement that I'm looking at 3rd ed players with.

Nah, not everyone. I primarily play AD&D 1e because of the atmosphere (best art in any edition IMO), but I won't ever view a 2e player with scorn.  That's mostly 1989 and TDD who do that.  2e is still AD&D, even it it's the PG rated version

But it is a more cleaned up version, so I can see why people would prefer that.  Hell, I use 2e thief skill progression and cleric sphere rules in my 1e games.

Quote from: Mr. GC;585763The point is stuff like Sleep was even better then, whereas Magic Missile was actually a bit worse (sure enemies had less HP, but also came in much larger groups, making single target damage worthless).

Magic missle is for use on opposing spellcasters, an unerring attack which disrupts their spells in the round it's cast in 1e. Single targets are exactly what it's designed for.

There's a reason I considered titling this, "A Denner discovers chess."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;585177D&D is not a game to keep score between the players.  This attitude among some people that they must have the most powerful character of the group, and that they must "win" every encounter is a blight upon our hobby.

You're just mad because you don't know how to play.

Quote from: danbuter;585807You're just mad because you don't know how to play.

I'm usually the DM