Quote from: Mr. GC;588896Basket weavers ruin all games.).

I am basically done contributing to the thread, but this statement deserves a respnse.

The problem with your statement is it just takes single exception to invalidate it. I just ran a game with a basket weaver in it, and he did not ruin the game. I am sure others here can think of games that basket weavers failed to ruin in their own experience.

Quote from: Old One Eye;588898Not true in the slightest.  In every edition, whatever monsters can be encountered are those that are placed by the DM.  I've run Hommlet in 1e through 4e, it is not noticeably more deadly in any edition.  

It sounds like you are willing to change the actual world in relation to the edition.  I don't do that.

Except where if you look at the actual rules of the actual game, you get things like "number appearing". And these are significantly larger, especially with no CR rules. Alternately, you could look at actual adventures.

In fact let's do that.

So flipping past the first few that are actually rather easy no matter how you spin it... you soon get to the part where you're getting hit with four giants at once. Actually not that bad. If this were 3.5 this would be a level +2 encounter and any good party eats those for breakfast, so even in older editions where you can't be a good party still not so bad.

Then one area has over 30 of them and some of them are individually what would be 3-5 levels higher than the group if this were 3.5. Um yeah, ECL Fuck Off and die encounter much?

And it's not like if you seriously fuck up, all these giants fucking jump you, it's more like they're chilling, then someone says hey wait a minute, those guys aren't supposed to be here and then the party just asplodes.

Quote from: MGuy;588832A character who decides to pick up Craft: Basket Weave is not necessarily "weak". As I understand it "basket weaver" is supposed to refer to someone who pays no heed to the rules of the game and plays a character not fit for the motif of the game. As in the person chooses to play a professional basket weaver in a game about big damn heroes.

Now, assuming the player doesn't focus on Craft:Basket Weaving may still end up being a valuable member of the team but they'd be slightly more effective if instead they put more points in a more valuable skill. In DnD you are essentially punished for not picking up every survival skill you can. For every point you spend on basket weaving you lose more valuable skills like spot/listen/sneak/Use Magic Device. That is not good. I whole heartedly believe the best approach is to have that skill available but not make it cost the same thing to get as more valuable skills.

As a GM, I don't really care how a player builds a character. If a fighter's highest score is assigned to charisma or wisdom rather that strength, who's to say it's a bad choice? That kind of thing needs to be left to the player to decide. Ditto for skills.

In a MERC2000 game I had a PC max out his skill in the Tamil language just as a goof (the campaign was in the Andes, where the language is uh, not exactly common). The GM rolled his eyes and the other players did, too -but it was my character so tough titty. The GM had a computer program that randomly created NPCs and as luck would have it (and to the surprise of the GM "You've gotta be fucking kidding me!"), one of the important NPCs spoke Tamil. So those points weren't wasted after all.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588901Except where if you look at the actual rules of the actual game, you get things like "number appearing". And these are significantly larger, especially with no CR rules. Alternately, you could look at actual adventures.

Seriously, the law of averages cannot be this broken.  You cannot possibly be so incredibly wrong all the time.  St Darwin would have been forced to remove you from the gene pool a long time ago if that had been the case.

'Number appearing' means exactly jack and squat.  I wear the Viking Hat, I decide how many monsters there are.  It's my campaign, it's my world, it's my encounter design.  I am sure you are howling in rage at the moment, but my players don't coast through by dint of DM Mercy like you are accustomed to.  CR was clearly included to keep shitty players from having to face an actual challenge.

Every time you fall back on the rules demanding things go in your favour, you are begging the DM not to hurt your precious snowflake character.  Characters who take various non-combat skills at least have some strategies available while you are sobbing in the corner because you couldn't defeat every situation with swording and DM favour.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892It's not about how long it takes to get attached to a character. It's about if you're constantly changing characters, you're not going to get attached because you know they're just going to die horribly.

To have a conversation with people, you need to acknowledge what they are actually telling you and not behave like a brick wall. That's communication 101. When you make comments like this, you are failing at communication 101, because you are failing to recognize I already have addressed this with you multiple times, and discarded everything I said about it. Unlike me, who have acknowledged for instance, your own experience playing the game around 10 with 3 DMs and acted on the basis that some of the things you said, the less outlandish or obviously completely wrong ones, that is, might actually be true.

You are not reciprocating. From there, we'd just be running in circles. If you want to have a conversation with people, you need to avoid saying stuff like this on other forums...

Quote from: Mr. GCBlack people are not objectively wrong. Grognards are. Black is not a choice. Grog is.

I hope you can honestly see the difference between discriminating against others based on a choice they made and discriminating against others based on circumstances beyond their control.

Because if you just honestly compared racism to anti grog there is no hope for you.

... because right there you are typing very clearly that you discriminate against people you are trying to pretend to have a "conversation" with here, and clearly spell out you think they are wrong-forever-period-the-end.

Pro tip: Conversation. Discussion. These words do not mean what you think they mean.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892So you mean to tell me you do not roll a D20 and see if enemies hit? Because if you do, it doesn't matter if you call that "to hit, THAC0, or get in the kitchen and make me a sammich", what matters is that if they roll high you die. Now you're actually being fairly reasonable here, so don't start that bullshit again.

Nice try, but that isn't actually what I said. What I said is that your hesitation, like ALL the times you spoke about 1e and got it completely and utterly wrong, basically spell out that you were lying when you said you were reading the books right now. If you were, you would know what to call it, and that's that.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892Translation: You seriously expect taking thing's stuff without killing them to be easier than killing them and then taking their stuff, and seriously expect all enemies to be incredibly stupid even if they aren't. Yeah, I can see why you claim it's an incredibly non lethal experience. You're fighting MMO mobs and not D&D monsters.

Who said that was going to be easy, or that the enemies would be stupid? You are projecting here. Just another way to not engage in an actual discussion.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892None of that would prevent one enemy rolls high = one PC dies, and there are about as many enemies as PCs.

Well yes it would, if the enemies didn't have a chance to roll in the first place. And that's what I said just one paragraph above. Well done. That's a nice string of not-having-a-conversation you got there.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892One was, one was 16, one was... I have no idea, but he's the dad that originally owned the books. All turned out about the same. Death, death, death... I think I got to 5 or 6 once, before dying and being screwed hard by the must make new at level 1 rule. If I recall correctly I died to my own spell because this is fuck you edition and they didn't tell you Fireball is volume based because they want you to learn that the hard way. A few years and in hindsight at least I accomplished nothing.

Ever considered you suck at strategy and tactics? Because all things being equal, if you keep having the same experience playing the game with different people and you die die die, given that other people here, including me, told you that if the game is dangerous and challenging for low levels, it isn't insurmontable, that means that, by Occam's Razor, you are the most constant factor in the problem you are having with this game others are not experiencing anywhere to the degree you have. Ergo, you must suck at the game.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892When you say what other RPGs have you run and the other person says they think the other RPGs are universally terrible, worthless, and not worth the time and money to learn even though they did not actually say those things were not played much or at all, that's exactly what the case is. Don't start this autistic pedantic bullshit where you act like you can't understand anything that isn't explicitly spelled out.

Okay. So that means you have never played or run another RPG ever. See? That wasn't that complicated. Now that tells me something about you and allows me to understand better where you are coming from. Thank you.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892Except for the part where I read WPM a few days ago. The only way many rooms full of horrible death becomes not many rooms of horrible death is if the DM starts nerfing everything, ignoring the rules, etc.

OK. That's where it's kind of obvious you take me for a moron and I didn't speak about "just reading" the module in the very paragraph you quoted to post this answer. I mean, really?

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892I'm thinking no. I'd like to say I tried once and the DM got mad because (in hindsight) I'd have seen the super secret fuck you versions of spells and such but I don't remember clearly enough to say.

Right. So you have not read the DMG. Which is the book where all the rules you have been talking about and which you got systematically completely and utterly wrong have all been coming from. We also know that you were lying when you said that you were reading the DMG right now. That's fairly obvious by the way you got everything utterly and completely wrong when talking about 1e. I think we're getting somewhere here.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892Yes I believe I mentioned that... when I was talking about how easy it is to be 1-2 hit KOed.

Apparently you misremembered between that post and the one where you supposed people were leveling up in two sessions in the game. So now I'm wondering if you actually read the PH at all, either. I'm going to guess, since you told me to use my brain and actually read between the lines, and say that's likely to be a big fat "NO" as well.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892And they are working jobs that while dangerous, are incredibly safe compared to any D&D character. So you consider, policemen and firefighters are rarely hurt in the line of duty if they are well trained. Adventurers are likely to be even if they are.

So while you rarely hear about a firefighter consumed by blazes, or an officer down in the line of duty, what you do hear about in the D&D world is the equivalent of a single police station losing > its maximum concurrent staff per year every year... and that's if they're doing it right (and playing a game in which this is even possible). So if you have 12 "officers", that's more than 12 deaths per year.

You rarely hear about firefighters and cops going down into the supernatural underworld of dungeons either. If these people lived in the world of D&D and went down the dungeon, they wouldn't last long either.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588892Right... I don't think you're actually interested in a discussion after all.

See the beginning of this post. You basically fail at communication 101. You don't seem to know what a "discussion" is. And judging by the logic you exposed on the Gaming Den talking about how "it's okay to be discriminatory against Grogs because they are wrong", this is obvious you are not interested in actually having an exchange man to man, like an adult, and own your bullshit to move on and build something constructively.

There. At least this exchange has been useful for me. I know for certain, without the shadow of a doubt now, that (1) you know fuck all about D&D, and RPGs in general, (2) you have been lying to us about it, (3) you are not here to have an actual discussion, and (4) you will not man up and own your own mistakes.

I just gave you a fair chance to have an actual conversation. You decided against it, and you blew it.

There's no conversation possible. Good day.

Quote from: Benoist;588928To have a conversation with people, you need to acknowledge what they are actually telling you and not behave like a brick wall. That's communication 101. When you make comments like this, you are failing at communication 101, because you are failing to recognize I already have addressed this with you multiple times, and discarded everything I said about it. Unlike me, who have acknowledged for instance, your own experience playing the game around 10 with 3 DMs and acted on the basis that some of the things you said, the less outlandish or obviously completely wrong ones, that is, might actually be true.

You're talking about how long it takes to get attached to a character which is not what I am talking about at all. So NOU.

QuoteYou are not reciprocating. From there, we'd just be running in circles. If you want to have a conversation with people, you need to avoid saying stuff like this on other forums...

What I said there is "it's fine not to like someone based on the choices they make". You could say this is painfully obvious, you could try to argue with it, but since literally everyone everywhere thinks that [Certain type of activity and those that partake in it] is distasteful including those here, you don't get to single me out for doing the same.

I mean the entire fucking premise of this board is complaining about "the Swine", so if this sort of thing actually bothers you (and you aren't just being oppositional for the sake of it) you should go have a word with your boss.

Quote... because right there you are typing very clearly that you discriminate against people you are trying to pretend to have a "conversation" with here, and clearly spell out you think they are wrong-forever-period-the-end.

Pro tip: Conversation. Discussion. These words do not mean what you think they mean.

Yes, I don't like idiots. I've said I don't like idiots directly and openly. Numerous times, right here. Why is this a revelation? Now I believe that you are just pretending to have a conversation with me, but I was really trying with you until you revealed that.

QuoteNice try, but that isn't actually what I said. What I said is that your hesitation, like ALL the times you spoke about 1e and got it completely and utterly wrong, basically spell out that you were lying when you said you were reading the books right now. If you were, you would know what to call it, and that's that.

I said whatever the attack accuracy stat is being called, if they hit you hit the floor. You chose to bitch about what the attack accuracy stat is being called and will continue to do so (even though I specifically chose that wording to preempt the sperging), just like when I said "to hit" I was told that was both wrong and right then I said THAC0 and it's the same... if I said the sky is blue you'd fucking argue with me on that. It's just oppositional bullshit, and not raising any actual points.

QuoteWho said that was going to be easy, or that the enemies would be stupid? You are projecting here. Just another way to not engage in an actual discussion.

You're operating under the assumption this actually works, so you did.

QuoteWell yes it would, if the enemies didn't have a chance to roll in the first place. And that's what I said just one paragraph above. Well done. That's a nice string of not-having-a-conversation you got there.

So the party should always act before all enemies and always kill all enemies before they can act, every time?

Weren't you guys just bitching about how I fail at probability? Because anyone can tell that's about statistically impossible.

QuoteEver considered you suck at strategy and tactics? Because all things being equal, if you keep having the same experience playing the game with different people and you die die die, given that other people here, including me, told you that if the game is dangerous and challenging for low levels, it isn't insurmontable, that means that, by Occam's Razor, you are the most constant factor in the problem you are having with this game others are not experiencing anywhere to the degree you have. Ergo, you must suck at the game.

If it were "I'm dying because I'm a fucking kid", I'd have taken that into consideration. When this is also happening to adults and everyone, including the DM regards it as a normal thing, and these are entirely different groups with very little member overlap...

When I go back later and actually look at it now that I have a better understanding of these things and I wonder "Well wait, how the fuck do you survive this?" and I look around and other groups are also a constant death fest...

Not only am I going to conclude that old editions are in fact invariably lethal, I'm going to conclude those here claiming otherwise are simply being oppositional since if they had actual points, they wouldn't be easily maneuvered into contradicting themselves simply by taking whatever stance currently opposes mine despite not actually believing that. Instead they'd just believe what they believe and stick to their beliefs.

QuoteOkay. So that means you have never played or run another RPG ever. See? That wasn't that complicated. Now that tells me something about you and allows me to understand better where you are coming from. Thank you.

Translation: Even though this topic has absolutely nothing to do with non D&D games I'm going to dismiss you out of hand because you don't play non D&D games.

Ok, whatever.

QuoteOK. That's where it's kind of obvious you take me for a moron and I didn't speak about "just reading" the module in the very paragraph you quoted to post this answer. I mean, really?

You said some crap about reading it a long time ago.

QuoteYou rarely hear about firefighters and cops going down into the supernatural underworld of dungeons either. If these people lived in the world of D&D and went down the dungeon, they wouldn't last long either.

Thus adventurers are held to a higher standard. Glad we're in agreement!

QuoteSee the beginning of this post. You basically fail at communication 101. You don't seem to know what a "discussion" is. And judging by the logic you exposed on the Gaming Den talking about how "it's okay to be discriminatory against Grogs because they are wrong", this is obvious you are not interested in actually having an exchange man to man, like an adult, and own your bullshit to move on and build something constructively.

Get real. As if you like me. Yet, you're bitching that... I don't like basket weavers and you consider yourself one? Something that again, I've been very open about? Whatever man. Whatever.

Quote from: Mr. GC;588937It's just oppositional bullshit, and not raising any actual points.

It's a 'no smoking' sign on your cigarette break.

Quote from: StormBringer;588939It's a 'no smoking' sign on your cigarette break.

I have to be crystal clear about my previous post before someone follows on this: my post and ultimate dismissal of GC was not an invitation to trash him and/or this thread. You've read the Pundit as I did. Be very careful not to just post "fuck you" one-liners when answering him. Try to add something to the conversation, address the OP, etc. Otherwise that's not going to fly.

Quote from: Elfdart;588910As a GM, I don't really care how a player builds a character. If a fighter's highest score is assigned to charisma or wisdom rather that strength, who's to say it's a bad choice? That kind of thing needs to be left to the player to decide. Ditto for skills.

In a MERC2000 game I had a PC max out his skill in the Tamil language just as a goof (the campaign was in the Andes, where the language is uh, not exactly common). The GM rolled his eyes and the other players did, too -but it was my character so tough titty. The GM had a computer program that randomly created NPCs and as luck would have it (and to the surprise of the GM "You've gotta be fucking kidding me!"), one of the important NPCs spoke Tamil. So those points weren't wasted after all.

I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.

Your example has several issues all its own. For one, randomness happened to be in your favor and that's not a reliable thing. For two the result was of minimal importance. Had no one spoke Tamil I'm fairly sure the GM would have had the important NPC ALSO speak the local tongue (as that would make sense). For three I'm not sure what the game you're even playing is so there's a very good chance that other skills or abilities that have the same cost were similarly narrow in utility or may have been unnecessary considering your group.

Psst!  It's role-playing.  Not roll-playing

Quote from: MGuy;588941I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.

Your example has several issues all its own. For one, randomness happened to be in your favor and that's not a reliable thing. For two the result was of minimal importance. Had no one spoke Tamil I'm fairly sure the GM would have had the important NPC ALSO speak the local tongue (as that would make sense). For three I'm not sure what the game you're even playing is so there's a very good chance that other skills or abilities that have the same cost were similarly narrow in utility or may have been unnecessary considering your group.

Yeah really. All you have to do to assess a warrior (which might or might not be a Fighter, and could easily be a monster the party is fighting and not a part of the party at all) is look at HP, attack/damage, and other basic stats. You compare one numbers line to the other and the bigger one wins. That's the whole game.

I could demonstrate this easily, but OHT really doesn't like demonstrations of actual play. This makes it essentially impossible to meaningfully discuss the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;588943Psst!  It's role-playing.  Not roll-playing

Dude, SERIOUSLY? When I just posted about being careful with one-liners? You really want to go there?

Quote from: RPGPundit;588681As for the rest of you motherfuckers (and by rest of you I mean EVERYONE, not "the denners"), on these subjects related to charop and this "basketweaving" bullshit and everything else to do with the "denner invasion", CONSIDER EVERYONE ON THE SITE WARNED.
I WILL ban you if you derail a thread.
I WILL ban you if you start posting off-topic to turn a thread that wasn't originally about a "denner" subject into a "denner" thread.

And I'll ban you even if you don't do those things but otherwise display behaviour that leads me to conclude your only reason to be here is to try to disrupt this forum.

Understood?

RPGPundit

I mean. Seriously. Cut that shit out. If you can't post anything constructive to the conversation other than a one-line flamebait, DON'T.

Is that clear now?

Quote from: CRKrueger;588872The weirdest aspect of the whole "basket-weaver" concept is that it was basically invented by 3e.  1e and 2e don't have anywhere near the level of optimization required to truly gimp yourself.

Well if you have less choices to make about what your character can do then naturally you have less control over the resulting effectiveness of your character.

Quote from: MGuy;588941I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.

Doesn't it depend completely upon the type of campaign being run?

You can make the biggest most beefiest Fighter evar and it wont mean dippity-do in a game that doesn't have much Combat.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588899I am basically done contributing to the thread, but this statement deserves a respnse.

The problem with your statement is it just takes single exception to invalidate it. I just ran a game with a basket weaver in it, and he did not ruin the game. I am sure others here can think of games that basket weavers failed to ruin in their own experience.

In the Majestic Wilderlands GURPS campaign I am running I have a player who is a 75 point puppet master who knows a dozen spells at very low levels (13 to 15 skill). Mostly spells that generate special effects for his show.

Last session he managed to kill six ghouls in a single shot by using his explosive fireball. Good thing too as these Ghouls are capable of inflicting Voices of the Dead on characters. If the characters fails their save they hear an auditory illusion of the voices of beloved deceased relatives compelling them to attack the party as enemies. One of the surviving ghoul managed to nail one of the party which caused much havoc.

Being skilled at puppetry sounds pretty much in the same class as basket weaving to me and it seems to work out for the player.

The trick for my campaigns is that I run the game in an immersive style. The player isn't required to have a detailed background or personality but he does have to interact with the setting as if he was really there. This often leads the player into finding things that interests them that at first glance would be pretty mundane.

The same puppet master character had a chance encounter with a drunken townsperson with ultimately lead to one session where most of his time was spent him interaction with the townsperson and his family. Which in a later session proved inadvertently useful when the group were dealing with some spies and needed some manpower to resolve a situation.

RPGs deal with a setting, you can handle interaction with a setting abstractly or in detail. When you do it in detail, you can use what I call the Soap Opera effect to generate interesting adventure. The Soap Opera effect is the fact that most people are interested about other people. And if they get interested in some NPCs regardless of how mundane their situation is, the potential for adventure exists. I.e. some conflict that needs to be resolve through the actions of the PC.