Quote from: GameDaddy;588511...What? I take off for a day, and a thread about basket weaving becomes a sixteen page flamefest/rant/whine about how rolling D&D HPs using D6's is unfair for the players and D&D 3.x is suckage?

Define "basket weaver"

I gather it refers to a player who doesn't optimize his character build as proficiently as Mistborn and Co. would like. I also gather that in his preferred style of game, a degree of optimization is expected and even required, and a more ordinary character might not fit in.
All this presumes the possibility of character optimization. In games where playing the hand you're dealt is part of the challenge (as in real life, for whatever it's worth) such a classification is meaningless.

Yes, the topic is as boring as it sounds.

Quote from: Dan Vincze;588522All this presumes the possibility of character optimization. In games where playing the hand you're dealt is part of the challenge (as in real life, for whatever it's worth) such a classification is meaningless.

It also implies a profound lack of understanding of the skills in question, even in games where optimisation is a factor, and while I won't say a lack of imagination as regards using those skills, yanno...

Maybe we need to get all postmodernist on this shit? Basket is like a campaign. In the end you look at the campaign you've finished and either it looks like a real basket you can carry shit in, or something like the webs of those spiders on crack.

Am I doing this right?

Quote from: vytzka;588531Maybe we need to get all postmodernist on this shit? Basket is like a campaign. In the end you look at the campaign you've finished and either it looks like a real basket you can carry shit in, or something like the webs of those spiders on crack.

Am I doing this right?

I don't fucking even know. I'm still reeling from the Gibberlings' recent color spray of stupidity. When I spoke of pietà pose and technicolor poo I didn't think it'd be a feat of base idiocy topped so fast.

I don't think DADAist could pull this off, let alone any of our post-modernist mockeries. There's a level of conviction necessary here that seems beyond the scope of conscious trolling. It's starting to evoke real pity from me.

Quote from: The Traveller;588526It also implies a profound lack of understanding of the skills in question, even in games where optimisation is a factor, and while I won't say a lack of imagination as regards using those skills, yanno...

As far as I understand the Denner viewpoint, the only things that count are things you can press DM's nose at and they have to pay attention to your adolescent ass.

You always have your BAB for instance, if there's combat and you want to stab a motherfucker you make an attack roll, then damage roll, then someone suffers damage. There's no interpretation or very little of it.

(Let's pretend that stabbing things is at all important in higher level 3.5 combat for the sake of discussion)

When you have a skill like basket weaving, it relies on the DM being a decent human being in order to have it be useful. You can go all like my character wants to make a hut or whatever like in those pictures earlier in the thread and if your DM is a douche he will be all like orcs attack.

Remember: if it doesn't work with a douche DM it doesn't count. Because bad gaming is apparently better than no gaming?

(no, I don't get it either)

Quote from: vytzka;588531Maybe we need to get all postmodernist on this shit?

Nah. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the term being discussed is Tuesdays occupational therapy session for certain posters...It probably comes right after making mail-bags and just before finger-painting.

Quote from: -E.;588446I just wanted to drop in here and help you out:

Basic statistics (averages) are certainly applicable to D&D, just as they are to any game that uses uses dice or other randomizers. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about using the to understand the likely outcome of any die roll or set of die rolls.

So when someone with a 100% chance to hit, 10 damage per hit and 20 HP fights someone with a 50% chance to hit, 20 damage per hit and 10 HP and B goes first, A always wins?

QuoteYour thinking about D&D combat not 'lasting' long enough doesn't change averages or probability -- trust me on this (or, if you can't, ask your math teacher).

Because averages matter when only 1-3 iterations count. You can average those results, but you will likely get something dramatically different than the median result.

Here, I'll even help you with that.

3d20+0
1,9,1+0 = 11

3d20+0
11,14,16+0 = 41

3d20+0
8,8,7+0 = 23

Oh look, most of these sets average well above or well below 10.5. Now if you averaged all of them together you'd be a lot closer but that's called getting a large enough sample size to be representative.

QuoteFrom your post, you clearly have a basic (correct) understanding of what an average is, but I think you may be misunderstanding how statistical thinking is applied in practice (e.g. to assess a game like D&D).

Maybe you've heard or read that statistics can be used in intellectually dishonest ways?

Weighted averages have actually been used dishonestly by D&D players, by virtue of not taking the too small sample size into account.

Quote from: beejazz;588450Just a quibble, but hp probabilities are on a bell curve. 2 and 12 are equally likely (1 in 36 odds I think) but 6 or 7 are more likely (1 in 6 I think). And the curve gets steeper the higher in level you are.

Sorry if I got anything wrong, but I just woke up. Gotta be awake for an all-nighter when some oil-based ink dries.

2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12.

But since we're talking about level 1 it's just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

QuoteHonestly, the point of highest randomness (1st level) often gets a special rule for exactly this reason. Special rules include a flat bonus from con (for games where you don't apply that over and over), max on the die, or some other flat hp total or bonus.

In games where randomess is kept high, I would assume they keep it in place because they want it.

It usually does... but not in these games. Pre 3rd edition, 1st HD is random. 3.x, it gets maxed (you'll still often die in 1-2 hits though).

Quote from: -E.;588474I think you're out, but just in case, I wanted to offer a clarification and a recommended perspective --

Low level, low-hit point characters aren't "virtually unplayable." They're challenging to play, and I can see how it might not be to everyone's taste, but low-level D&D can be a lot of fun.

We're talking about a game where literally 90%ish of the areas you go in have at least one fuck you, people die now. You want to wander around with even lower HP than usual? Unless you do some shit where you respawn at the beginning of the dungeon or if someone touches your body for a round it is quite literally unplayable because everyone will die before getting anywhere.

QuoteThey also don't necessarily die. Careful play can keep them alive long enough to level up to become robust characters -- that can be an extremely rewarding play style.

So would that be paranoid pole dancing, complete with lots of reading the DM's notes behind his back?

QuoteMost games (and any game with "rule 0" like D&D 3x) have the same situation: the DM can throw whatever he wants, so no matter how optimized your character is, he's only as fragile as the next room with 100 invulnerable, regenerating Tarrasque's, right?

"I cast Fly and instantly win."

Try again.

Quote from: GameDaddy;588511...What? I take off for a day, and a thread about basket weaving becomes a sixteen page flamefest/rant/whine about how rolling D&D HPs using D6's is unfair for the players and D&D 3.x is suckage?

Define "basket weaver"

I defined that on the first page. People would rather go off on tangents to defend the right of basket weavers to ruin every game they touch.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588472Wow so someone is actually willing to admit that the old rolling system created characters that are virtually unplayable and you got one that was by repeatedly dying.

No one has admitted that, dumbass. Learn to read first or fall in a well and die. Your choice.

QuoteOk then LM recap time.

Le Sigh

Quote-As much as this forum is on about "Actual Play" it only translates to games that support the grognard's points.

In this forum people posts the Actual Play of the games they play, which happen to be the games they like, just the fucking same as every other messageboard you fucktard. What are people supposed to play, games they don't like?

Quote-Given that the completely dismiss theorycraft and now refuse to allow tests to be run. It is basically impossible for either side to conclusively prove anything

Quote-"Winning" in D&D can be defined as accomplishing your characters goal's and regardless there is a clear failure state (death) to be avoided.

-In the view of both GC and myself everyone should be working toward helping the party "win" and failure to do so adequately do that should be discouraged.

Your views are not only not universally shared, but they actually clash with the most common definition of the goals of the game, specially D&D games. So I can wipe my ass with your point of view.

Quote-As written D&D kills players by the truckload barring DM pity (all editions) a or high level of optimization (3e or later)

If it's too hard for you, play something else.

Quote(fun fact the original VtM made the the mechanics deliberately bad to encourage MTP)

You think this is a fact? Says who, you idiot? You really think that Mark Rein·Hagen, Andrew Greenberg and the rest sat down and said "Gee, let's do a crappy system so people will be forced to use DM fiat?" Really?

Quote from: CRKrueger;588475Try by creating a thread about a game you actually know something about without it being a ridiculously obvious cover for trolling against games you know nothing about filled with attacks against the people who play the games you know nothing about.  

It's been known to work now and again.

Bingo.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588552"I cast Fly and instantly win."

I don't know in which kind of games this may happen.

One of the great things abou the way HP work in D&D is they usually provide several different methods and optional rules. One way to get around low level PCs being fragile is max HP. Not everyone likes that though. Some people prefer the randomness, and others consider it being an important balancer in the game (particularly for wizards who have more trouble making it through the first few levels than other classes). I don't know, maybe rather than try to mathmatically prove one style of play is "incorrect" you could explain why you like your style and accept different people like different things. Of course that requires posters not just being trolling the forum for laughs, and actually have a modicum of interest in what makes other gamers tick.

I have played with "basket weavers" and "munchkins". I can enjoy both. I can see the draw to to both styles. I have played unforgiving RPGs where you roll up a new character every session (sometimes multiples every session-----sometimes you never have to at all because you play cautiously and that is half the point) at lower levels and played ones where the PCs are more buffered early on against death. They both have things that make them fun.

Roleplayers and optimizers on their own don't destroy games. Jerks destroy games. A roleplayer bent on talking to the shopkeep for an hour when all anyone else wants to do is explore the Kobold Cave of Doom, creates a problem. An optimizer who creates broken builds and insists on following every last dot of the rulebook while metegaming the heck out of it, when all others want is a more freeform and roleplay heavy session also creates problems.  An optimizer in a group of optimizers does fine. A roleplayer in a group of roleplayers does fine. Optimizers who are not jerks can get along with Roleplayers just fine and vice versa. Its when you go into a group without any regard for the predominant style of play and expect them to bend to your style that problems arise.

Quote from: Imperator;588575You think this is a fact? Says who, you idiot? You really think that Mark Rein·Hagen, Andrew Greenberg and the rest sat down and said "Gee, let's do a crappy system so people will be forced to use DM fiat?" Really?

Old editions deliberately had rules of "you fail" for detecting traps so that people would be forced to pole dance to deal with them. It's very believable.

QuoteI don't know in which kind of games this may happen.

The kind that pretend a Tarrasque is an actual threat, when it has no ranged attacks, no flight, nothing that would let it kill any party over about level 6... 10 at the absolute most.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588576One of the great things abou the way HP work in D&D is they usually provide several different methods and optional rules. One way to get around low level PCs being fragile is max HP. Not everyone likes that though. Some people prefer the randomness, and others consider it being an important balancer in the game (particularly for wizards who have more trouble making it through the first few levels than other classes). I don't know, maybe rather than try to mathmatically prove one style of play is "incorrect" you could explain why you like your style and accept different people like different things. Of course that requires posters not just being trolling the forum for laughs, and actually have a modicum of interest in what makes other gamers tick.

Max HP = you still die constantly at low levels, just less than max makes it even more hilarious.

You can go max HP at ALL levels and low levels will still be pure randomness... though at least later on, having a high HD will actually mean something.

The rest of your post is full retard because:

A powergamer is not a cheater, get your terms right.
A powergamer is not any less capable of roleplaying (and is often more).
A weak character is not any better roleplayed (and is often much worse).
Your passive aggressive bullshit is fooling no one. And to think that I first gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588578Max HP = you still die constantly at low levels, just less than max makes it even more hilarious.

You can go max HP at ALL levels and low levels will still be pure randomness... though at least later on, having a high HD will actually mean something.

The rest of your post is full retard because:

A powergamer is not a cheater, get your terms right.
A powergamer is not any less capable of roleplaying (and is often more).
A weak character is not any better roleplayed (and is often much worse).
Your passive aggressive bullshit is fooling no one. And to think that I first gave you the benefit of the doubt.

I had a whole point by point response to this, then deleted when I realized at the end you are just trying to be disruptive. These points have zero to do with what I posted (which was about extreme asshole examples of roleplayers and optimizers). I basically said there is merit to both styles of play, including the one you advocate and you accuse me of engaging in "passive aggressive bullshit". Congratulations, you are an asshole. You have demonstrated there is no reason for me to engage you further or bother reading your posts (except when my mod duties require).

Ok then

Imperator should consider going back on his meds, seriously

Brendan has passed the point where I just have to assume he's concern trolling.

So yeah White Wolf games have terrible mechanics and "actual play" in those games is 90% MTP. I find it hard to believe people don't know this already.

Quote from: Imperator;588575If it's too hard for you, play something else.

Also that's my line when you try to MTP your way past an encounter (which is what the much vaunted player creativity this forum harps on) you are not being clever or a special creative snowflake. You are saying to the DM "Waaaaah D&D is too hard let's play pretend instead." DMs really should not enable the sort of behavior.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588552So when someone with a 100% chance to hit, 10 damage per hit and 20 HP fights someone with a 50% chance to hit, 20 damage per hit and 10 HP and B goes first, A always wins?

Because averages matter when only 1-3 iterations count. You can average those results, but you will likely get something dramatically different than the median result.

Here, I'll even help you with that.

3d20+0
1,9,1+0 = 11

3d20+0
11,14,16+0 = 41

3d20+0
8,8,7+0 = 23

Oh look, most of these sets average well above or well below 10.5. Now if you averaged all of them together you'd be a lot closer but that's called getting a large enough sample size to be representative.

Weighted averages have actually been used dishonestly by D&D players, by virtue of not taking the too small sample size into account.

2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12.

But since we're talking about level 1 it's just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

It usually does... but not in these games. Pre 3rd edition, 1st HD is random. 3.x, it gets maxed (you'll still often die in 1-2 hits though).



We're talking about a game where literally 90%ish of the areas you go in have at least one fuck you, people die now. You want to wander around with even lower HP than usual? Unless you do some shit where you respawn at the beginning of the dungeon or if someone touches your body for a round it is quite literally unplayable because everyone will die before getting anywhere.

So would that be paranoid pole dancing, complete with lots of reading the DM's notes behind his back?

"I cast Fly and instantly win."

Try again.

Intellectual Dishonesty around Averages
I'm still not seeing anything dishonest. I've read your explanation of averages, and it looks to me like you're -- very forcefully, and over and over again -- making the point that individual rolls won't necessarily be the "average."

I'm not sure why you keep pointing out the obvious: unless I'm missing something, isn't the idea that any individual roll won't necessarily be "the average" pretty much the definition of "average?"

Why do you keep re-stating that, and why do you think there's something dishonest about it?

Let me ask you, if I say that the "average" of a 1d6 is "3.5" would you call me intellectually dishonest because you can't actually roll a 3.5 on a d6?

I'd hope not -- but you say that D&D players are "dishonest" by not taking into account a small sample size -- you're misunderstanding something you've heard about using statistics to lie: sample size is important in using statistical methods to understand the characteristics of a group -- for example, polling.

You don't need any "sample size" to calculate an average on a dice roll, and there's nothing dishonest about using basic math to do so.

I'd ask you to try to explain what you actually feel is dishonest -- you don't need to re-iterate what an average is or that specific rolls won't necessarily be "average" -- I get that.

So, given that, where's the dishonesty?

Low Level D&D is unplayable
This is a pretty bold assertion -- are you saying that no one's ever played D&D because it's too deadly?

I get that you don't like it -- that's fine. There's a lot of games I don't like -- but to say it's too deadly is factually wrong.

If I played low level D&D and didn't find it "too deadly" wouldn't that invalidate your hypothesis?

I can fly and instantly win?
How does your first level D&D character have a fly spell? Also, aren't we in a room? If the ceiling's low then how does flying help you win?

I'm kind of confused by what you're saying here, but my point is that in any version of D&D, the DM has complete authority to put anything in the game he wants...

So isn't it trivially easy to create an un-winnable challenge?

How could it not be? Unless you're playing one of those fruity games where the DM doesn't have traditional authority -- is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

Cheers,
-E.

What the fuck is concern trolling supposed to mean in this context. This parroting random words instead of actual arguments thing is getting even more tedious than before.