I just want to be clear. Talking about 3.0, 3.5 or any edition is absolutely fine on therpgsite. Statements that it isn't or that threads get closed simply for mentioning a particular edition of D&D are incorrect. If you want to discuss a mod call or policy take it to the help desk.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589179I just want to be clear. Talking about 3.0, 3.5 or any edition is absolutely fine on therpgsite. Statements that it isn't or that threads get closed simply for mentioning a particular edition of D&D are incorrect. If you want to discuss a mod call or policy take it to the help desk.

And yet multiple threads were locked for this reason. Is it the "Thunderdome" type stuff that isn't allowed? I'm actually not being difficult here, I really am trying to find where the line is drawn.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589185And yet multiple threads were locked for this reason. Is it the "Thunderdome" type stuff that isn't allowed? I'm actually not being difficult here, I really am trying to find where the line is drawn.

As I said, if you have a mod policy question, post it in the help desk forum. No, no threads have ever been locked for that reason. These were not closed because they contained posts about 3E. They were closed because they devolved into off-topic insult and battle threads like the Rules not Rulings thread.

Quote from: TheHistorian;589107Wow!  Kind words.  Thanks!

Anytime! You're contributing meaningfully and sound like a welcome addition to this board. Here, have a cheerleader, because I'm not tired of the smilie yet.
:cheerleader:

Quote from: TheHistorian;589107... As far as I can tell, the only reason to play an RPG is to have fun.  Whichever style of play is fun for you, play with a group that plays that way and have a good time.  Another group will do things a totally different way and they'll have fun from a different direction.  *shrug*  How does one affect the other, really?

Because somewhere, out there, is a person playing wrong! And they'll be like this social land mine out there, just waiting to place you in a situation where you'll have to *gasp* act like an adult and communicate with others. If we cleanse the earth of these social land mines then we can travel to every table and play the same way! And Jupiter will align with Mars, then peace will guide the planets, and love will steer the stars!

It's like the nonsense when people expect to hear the same top 40 pap in every nightclub. And god, don't get me started on those shmoes who whinge to the DJ for the same tunes, complainin' "you work for me!" Leave the artist alone and get out if you can't deal. Same applies to tables and GMs. I ain't your babysitter or human-Amiga; if you want a faceless machine to run rpgs for you, go somewhere like RPGA/Living/Society or anywhere else.

When you play RPGs you gotta be prepared to deal with the human element. If you cannot handle that fact, the solution is not to stamp out the human element; it's to play another game. Rules will not save you from interacting with humanity.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589185And yet multiple threads were locked for this reason. Is it the "Thunderdome" type stuff that isn't allowed? I'm actually not being difficult here, I really am trying to find where the line is drawn.

The big problem with "Thunderdome" questions is that it is completely biased.

Like your example with group vs. a dragon, psionist, etc.  The group divines what they need and plan accordingly,  yet the 'opposition' never does?  The same 'opposition' that should know far in advance on who is coming...

Thunderdome died due to role playing combat to death through natural causes, like congenital heart failure or badgering the table second guessing the GM to quit. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote from: Sommerjon;589203The big problem with "Thunderdome" questions is that it is completely biased.

Like your example with group vs. a dragon, psionist, etc.  The group divines what they need and plan accordingly,  yet the 'opposition' never does?  The same 'opposition' that should know far in advance on who is coming...

In this example, they have more power in one location than many nations. Living in extreme fear of an attack without reason is unreasonable. Having the means to generally, but not always detect an attack well in advance without divinations? Reasonable.

Now had the party fought some stuff, then left and come back tomorrow they'd have found that Druid used Scrying and other such effects to learn what just happened, and what they need to deal with and so the enemy group would be much better prepared to deal with the party.

That said, if I were to use an actual demonstration here I wouldn't use that example. Both because people know enough of it to metagame it, and because even with that metagame knowledge I suspect their parties would be dying horribly without getting very far and I certainly need no convincing that weak characters die horribly in actual games. If I were to do such a demonstration, it would be proving basket weavers are invalid by putting weak classes up against enemies also restricted to weak classes in a scenario that is so laughably easy my friend's 9 year old nephew could faceroll right on through it and having the party die horribly anyways even when they are being played down to as people claim should happen. Alternately I would pick a specific weak class (probably Fighter or Rogue) and show how they lose horribly to an easy fight, all without going outside of core. There are others I could show as well, including alternate demonstrations of proper play but as OHT gets mad about those posts regardless of what Brendan says I'm not doing that without getting the go ahead.

Quote from: MGuy;589149He can do those things but if he's more worried about resisting mind affects, attracting followers, and reading more languages why isn't he just a cleric? There is nothing that being a fighter does for the concept of knowing more languages, resisting "stuff" etc, that simply being a cleric doesn't give. I'm not really sure how "being a psion" works in earlier editions but if it isn't something you can bank on (which the way you suggest  it here it is not) then it isn't worth reinvesting points into things that don't make you better at "being a fighter".

Class means different things to different people.  Perhaps the player wants to play a Fighter, not a cleric who fights?

Quote from: MGuy;589149The problem with "What if" situations like this is that for every "it worked out" you can come up with it could also "not work out". There could be any number of factors that can make you choosing to specialize in javelins for no reason into something that was simply a waste. What if there wasn't that much combat? What if someone else was in the party who was better at using javelins than you? What if there were no javelins? I could go on but such a thing is useless.

What's more is specializing in using a weapon is a useful skill to have and thus does not fall into "basket weaver" territory. Being able to hit stuff with a weapon is part of the motif and not a fringe thing.

That is why you should 'optimize' to the group and not the rule system.

Quote from: MGuy;589149And again, if you didn't know Tamil or could've communicated with him in another fashion (which isn't an unreasonable thing to assume), then the adventure would have still gone on whether or not you would've had the ability to speak Tamil. The adventure might have been different but it would've still gone on. Plus who's to say some other bad npc might not have been able to pick up on Tamil?

Group dynamics.
I guess it depends on how fleshed out the setting is.  Perhaps you have never come across someone who has information you need, need to ask the proper question, or have to give them something to relate to in order to get the information, but I sure have countless times.

Quote from: MGuy;589149"If" and that's a pretty big if. To counter I'll give some of my own: What if that 0-level men at arms isn't useful to the group?What if his low saves/hp only makes him a liability? What if by the act of playing as that men at arms you let down the group and cause other members of your team to die? What if the other players aren't up for having a game where one of the players purposefully gimps themselves for no reason?

These questions don't really matter, because these are all hypothetical. I have better questions though. Is there any reason that you don't think the game would be better separating "lesser" skills than more relevant skills? How is the game served better by actively punishing players for choosing to pick up things like basket weaving instead of perception?

By breathing life into the setting.  
Type III D&D has huge problems with skills and skill point allocation.   Some skills are artificially inflated and others are artificially deflated, classes have the wrong skill selections, skills acquisition is based upon the wrong stat, etc.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589211That said, if I were to use an actual demonstration here I wouldn't use that example. Both because people know enough of it to metagame it, and because even with that metagame knowledge I suspect their parties would be dying horribly without getting very far and I certainly need no convincing that weak characters die horribly in actual games. If I were to do such a demonstration, it would be proving basket weavers are invalid by putting weak classes up against enemies also restricted to weak classes in a scenario that is so laughably easy my friend's 9 year old nephew could faceroll right on through it and having the party die horribly anyways even when they are being played down to as people claim should happen. Alternately I would pick a specific weak class (probably Fighter or Rogue) and show how they lose horribly to an easy fight, all without going outside of core. There are others I could show as well, including alternate demonstrations of proper play but as OHT gets mad about those posts regardless of what Brendan says I'm not doing that without getting the go ahead.

Not everyone plays the same way you do?  Perhaps you enjoy this style of gaming and that's great for you.   I and others here do not.  If you truly think there is 'proper play'  for roleplaying games...well  I am sorry I do not live up to your standards of proper play.  Fortunately for me, I do not have to game with you, me and my group of unproper playing players will do just fine in our clueless oblivion.

(To me) this shows the greatest failure of type III D&D.  I like Fighters, I like Rogues and type III D&D shit on them in favor of 'mmaaaggiiicc'  It's a shame.

Quote from: Sommerjon;589214Not everyone plays the same way you do?  Perhaps you enjoy this style of gaming and that's great for you.   I and others here do not.  If you truly think there is 'proper play'  for roleplaying games...well  I am sorry I do not live up to your standards of proper play.  Fortunately I do not have to game with you, me and my group of unproper players will do just fine in our clueless oblivion.

(To me) this shows the greatest failure of type III D&D.  I like Fighters, I like Rogues and type III D&D shit on them in favor of 'mmaaaggiiicc'  It's a shame.

Assuming you're looking for a discussion: What is Type I/II/III by your definition? If it's edition based it falls flat on its face as Rogues (or thieves if you'd prefer) have always been bad, and Fighters haven't been much better.

And yes I do think that there are right (proper) ways of doing something and wrong ways.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589215And yes I do think that there are right (proper) ways of doing something and wrong ways.

[sarcasm]Yes, you are absolutely correct: the way my group plays is the right way to play. Anyone who plays even slightly differently is playing wrong.[/sarcasm]

Quote from: Sommerjon;589212Class means different things to different people.  Perhaps the player wants to play a Fighter, not a cleric who fights?

 That is why you should 'optimize' to the group and not the rule system.

You realize that still involves using the rules right?

QuoteGroup dynamics.
I guess it depends on how fleshed out the setting is.  Perhaps you have never come across someone who has information you need, need to ask the proper question, or have to give them something to relate to in order to get the information, but I sure have countless times.

I had a brief discussion about how plot doesn't die because you don't have the "Right" language but such a thing still applies. If you don't have the right language, access to flying magic monkey, a ship, whatever the plot will change a bit but still go on. No game is going to center around you having a niche ability.

QuoteBy breathing life into the setting.    
Type III D&D has huge problems with skills and skill point allocation.   Some skills are artificially inflated and others are artificially deflated, classes have the wrong skill selections, skills acquisition is based upon the wrong stat, etc.

None of  this answers the question. You can still have basket weaving the skill  and have it not cost as much as perception. My question is why doing that is bad/worth arguing against and how is the game better by forcing people to choose between a thematic but marginally useful skill and a general but valuable skill?>?

Quote from: Mr. GC;589215Assuming you're looking for a discussion: What is Type I/II/III by your definition? If it's edition based it falls flat on its face as Rogues (or thieves if you'd prefer) have always been bad, and Fighters haven't been much better.

And yes I do think that there are right (proper) ways of doing something and wrong ways.

Sure I'll have a discussion with you, however if you are going to 'try to get all up in my face'  I wont even bother.

I saw over on one of them links people were flashing around recently from tgd of all places someone using type instead of edition.  I really like that better.  It's all D&D they just happen to be different types of D&D.

If you prefer a different type of D&D more power to yous guys, just don;t poo on someone else's type of D&D.

My liking of Fighters and Rogues isn't bound by D&D standards, personally I never found D&D to really scratch my fantasy itch as well as other systems do.  It works, but D&D has always been slanted heavily towards magic classes.

Quote from: MGuy;589230You realize that still involves using the rules right?

Yep,  but it is not done in a vacuum.

Quote from: MGuy;589230I had a brief discussion about how plot doesn't die because you don't have the "Right" language but such a thing still applies. If you don't have the right language, access to flying magic monkey, a ship, whatever the plot will change a bit but still go on. No game is going to center around you having a niche ability.

Never meant that it should.  However, the difficulty can be quite different.  Like going to the DMV it can either be a stressing experience or somewhat pleasant one.  I know I try to use that little touch of 'reality' when I game.  I would much rather see people engage the setting by using a touch of reality then just the +mod on the sheet.  like you need information about Scary Mountain and an old crusty dwarf has the information, who should ask for the information the dwarf pc who has no skill in diplomacy or the elf pc who is overflowing with diplomacy?  More often than not in a type of D&D with diplomacy it's the elf.  I found that unfortunate.

That is where a lot of the people here who disagree with you are coming from.  They want to engage the setting not engage the system.

Quote from: MGuy;589230None of  this answers the question. You can still have basket weaving the skill  and have it not cost as much as perception. My question is why doing that is bad/worth arguing against and how is the game better by forcing people to choose between a thematic but marginally useful skill and a general but valuable skill?>?

Because some over emphasize the importance of a few skills.  It is a playstyle issue.

Quote from: Sommerjon;589239Yep,  but it is not done in a vacuum.

I'm fairly sure I haven't mentioned any vacuums. I'm being as general as I can be about the subject. "Basket Weaver" as I defined it earlier doesn't mean much until you know what the motif/focus of the campaign is.

QuoteNever meant that it should.  However, the difficulty can be quite different.  Like going to the DMV it can either be a stressing experience or somewhat pleasant one.  I know I try to use that little touch of 'reality' when I game.  I would much rather see people engage the setting by using a touch of reality then just the +mod on the sheet.  like you need information about Scary Mountain and an old crusty dwarf has the information, who should ask for the information the dwarf pc who has no skill in diplomacy or the elf pc who is overflowing with diplomacy?  More often than not in a type of D&D with diplomacy it's the elf.  I found that unfortunate.

That disappointment is odd but not surprising. It sounds like there're certain expectations you have and anything that runs counter to that disables your ability to extrapolate the results. If the Elf's diplomacy score is so high that it trumps having another dwarf speak to dwarves perhaps that elf has become practiced at speaking with races of different kinds (like a diplomat would be). Perhaps he's even known among dwarven circles. Perhaps he even has the dwarf in the group present and vouching for him.

QuoteThat is where a lot of the people here who disagree with you are coming from.  They want to engage the setting not engage the system.

The problem I'm having with people here is that for every argument I make people invent another position for me that involves attacking their playstyle and imagine I'm attacking that, then proceed to defend against an argument I didn't make. Like take this discussion for example. Half the responses assume that I want to get rid of "basket weaving" skills (as in elf's post). You assume I'm talking about games in a vacuum where, in this case, I'm not. There's also been mention of the player's ability to make up for a poorly crafted character that both require the player being allowed by the GM to minimize the character's weaknesses. What's worse people are twisting me pointing out that this is happening at all as an attack on their playstyle. I'd have to say that's my biggest problem with this board; that when you point out "this shit is happening" that must mean I'm saying it is badwrong.

What I'm saying here is that certain skills (perception) has obvious and valuable uses in any situation. There is almost no game where perception isn't a thing you want to have. There are vanishingly few games where being able to basket weave is something useful, and as stated before a number of those games have to force basket weaving to come up (or in your case it could happen completely at random) or the GM allows basket weaving to do more than weaving baskets. At the same time getting craft: woven baskets directly prevents you from getting skills like perception and there is really is no reason to let that continue at all.

QuoteBecause some over emphasize the importance of a few skills.  It is a playstyle issue.

I'm not even sure what you mean. I'm going to have to ask for examples or more details. It is not hard to see which skills are always valuable to have (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Hide, Bluff, Perception, Survival, Disable Device, etc) and which ones have marginal use at best (Knowledge: Nobility, Appraise, Profession, etc). There may be some people that overvalue things like Profession or even GMs that force you to have at least one profession (I've had a GM like that) but in every case those skills are given away as a bonus or have extra abilities attached to them so I'm not kicked in the balls (as hard) for adding flavor to my character.