Quote from: Sacrosanct;590772You know, all you're really doing is showing how 3.x is a shit system that should be avoided like the plague.  It very well may not be, but all of your posts are arguing about how it is.

Congrats on that.

No, it's a shit system.

Quote from: Sommerjon;590773No, it's a shit system.

Still less shit than the alternatives, and people actually play it in non negligible numbers, meaning you can have a large enough sample size to pick a small number of good players out of the whole.

It's okay if you don't play it with idiots (much like most systems) but it's often more work for the results you get than I'd like.

Quote from: vytzka;590778It's okay if you don't play it with idiots (much like most systems) but it's often more work for the results you get than I'd like.

This is true, but of all tabletop games. Getting a quality gaming experience takes several times longer in setup than playing a non tabletop game.

Originally Posted by deadDMwalking  
I disagree. We're absolutely talking about characters that don't meet the minimum requirements to contribute to the party's success.

Quote from: CRKrueger;590672Defined by who?  TGD or GITP Forums? The other players at the table, who?

Quote from: MGuy;590726You know that this thread's title is Define "basket weaver" right? You also should know that I've explained what I'm referring to when I say basket weaver as well. I do not feel it is helpful to debate any subject unless clear definitions exist and I think that I've been pretty explicit in saying that I'm referring to a character that has little to no relevant skills. As dead observed you don't make a professional chef for a game about heroes.

I'm using the same general criteria here.  My points are not about 'what makes a Basketweaver', which has already been discussed - they are about what to do with a basketweaver when you have one.  An underoptimized character can be just as much a disruption to the game as an overly optimized character.  

Of course 'the group' gets to make that decision.  Bringing a basketweaver to the game is a lot like brining a Chaotic Evil Rogue to a game with a Paladin at the table - the fact is, they're incompatible.  One or the other (or both) have to go.  Or, if you choose to allow it, you're going to run into problems down the road.  The types of problems have also been discussed, but it tends to be that the 'basketweaver' wants to contribute but lacks the ability to do so...  Either the basketweaver is sidelined, or the game is put on 'easy mode' so that suddenly you're killing Bin Laden by baking a meal that he's allergic too, not assaulting the place with guns blazing.  That's only alright if that's what everyone signed on for.  

Quote from: CRKrueger;590672Like...what.  Show me a list of the 3.5 skills that every character must have maxed within the rules to survive.  Enough hyperbolic bullshit, list what the hell you mean.

Here you are demanding no 'hyperbolic bullshit' and yet you're the one making the claim that there are skills that need maxed ranks to survive?  That is not my position.  For myself, in 3.x, I actually like skills, and I tend to make highly skilled characters (one reason I dislike the Fighter), but most skills are unnecessary with the availability of magic.  Jump is unnecessary if you can fly.  Climb is unnecessary if you can fly.  Hide is mostly unnecessary if you can turn invisible.  Move Silently is mostly unnecessary if you can cast silence.  Diplomacy is mostly unnecessary if you can cast charm.  Ride and Handle Animal don't usually come up much if you're below ground in a dungeon.  So, there are no skills that require max ranks to be survivable.  

But it is possible to make a character that is functionally unable to contribute to the adventuring team.  A good example would be insisting on playing a low-level Commoner in a high-level game.  Another example would be taking a 'Vow of Non-Violence'.  

It's also possible to make a character that is effective, even if they aren't optimized.  For example, in a game based on historical/mythic Iceland/Greenland I played a character who took Aristocrat for his first level.  I could have taken a more optimal choice, but it suited the character and the background, and I made some effective choices in other ways so he didn't 'hold the team back' - and in fact, he was able to make contributions as the 'face'.  

Quote from: CRKrueger;590672How about you show us an example of a 1st level 3.5 character, any type, that you consider to be a perfect example of this "basket-weaving" character that is a threat to all you hold dear.  Then show us a 5th level Rogue who meets the minimum requirements for inclusion in the non-basketweaver club.

Quote from: MGuy;590738I'm fairly sure Dead isn't for games with only optimized people and nothing for everyone else. GC would be but I'd just suggest you put him on ignore.

MGuy is right - I'm not saying you have to be optimized to play or have fun.  I am pointing out that each group has a certain style of play that can stretch to some degree to accomodate different play styles.  Some styles of play are incompatible with that chosen style of play.  A basketweaver is somoene who fails to accomodate themselves to the group norms - and is only one such example.  As a result, there is no objective definition of 'this is a basketweaver' because the group's 'center' has to be known.  A group of entirely ineffective characters (that might be deemed 'basketweavers in other groups) might actually work together - be aware that they'll be 'way below expected power level', but that's not always a problem.  If a group of 10th level characters are struggling to complete adventures designed for 5th level characters, it certainly shows that they're not optimized - but it doesn't mean that they won't have fun.  

For myself personally, I like a challenge.  I'd rather have a 5th level character struggling to accomplish 10th level challenges than the reverse - I like to overcome difficult challenges - that's fun for me.  

Quote from: CRKrueger;590672Just once, in three accursed wasted months, fucking prove something with all your supposed rules knowledge.

What do you want me to prove?  What form of proof would you find convincing?  Examples from play have been rejected because no matter how reasonable an interpretation might be, the 'DM was bad'.  Theoretical examples that illustrate a point have been dismissed as 'not examples of real play'.  Pointing out how common an issue is or how often it has been complained about has been dismissed with 'play the game, not the rules'.  Pointing out that an issue has been recognized by numerous authorities, including RPG_Pundit are also discarded.  

I'd consider 'Fighters in 3.x are sub-optimal compared to any other class, especially clerics and wizars' to have been 'proven' numerous ways and numerous times, but if you disagree, I have no hope that I'll be able to 'prove' anything else to you to your satisfaction.  Nor do I feel that is why I'm here.  This is a place to discuss games and gaming - a discussion can be productive even if neither side changes their initial position.

Quote from: Mr. GC;590775Still less shit than the alternatives, .

Apparently not, by your own arguments.  In other editions, you don't run into gimping because you can't choose to pick worthless skills like you can in 3e.  You've spent pages, and weeks, adamantly saying that unless you optimize, you have a gimp character.

In most of the other editions, you don't optimize.  Not really.  Nothing like 3e.  A class in all other editions has core attributes that make it have value, and those can't be chosen to go away.  So by your own words, 3e is set up to be a shit system that allows players to build shit builds.  A trait no other edition shares.

Hey man, your words.  The only question is, why do you insist on playing such a shit system?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;590800Apparently not, by your own arguments.  In other editions, you don't run into gimping because you can't choose to pick worthless skills like you can in 3e.  You've spent pages, and weeks, adamantly saying that unless you optimize, you have a gimp character.

In most of the other editions, you don't optimize.  Not really.  Nothing like 3e.  A class in all other editions has core attributes that make it have value, and those can't be chosen to go away.  So by your own words, 3e is set up to be a shit system that allows players to build shit builds.  A trait no other edition shares.

Hey man, your words.  The only question is, why do you insist on playing such a shit system?

If you were paying attention, you'd know character value has nothing to do with skills.

If you were really paying attention, you'd know that game value comes from actual depth, and that games in which everyone dies randomly by pure luck are bad.

Of course you are Sacro, you have done none of these things.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;590772You know, all you're really doing is showing how 3.x is a shit system that should be avoided like the plague.  It very well may not be, but all of your posts are arguing about how it is.

Congrats on that.

Yeah, 3.0 and 3.5 are probably my least favourite versions of D&D (haven't played/run enough 4th to decide), but reading people like GC or Mistborn with the constant whining about how many classes/skills/feats/spells are broken make the game less and less attractive.

Well, anyway, 99% of the stuff that is discussed as a problem in D&D is nonexistent in RQ

Quote from: Mr. GC;590775Still less shit than the alternatives, and people actually play it in non negligible numbers, meaning you can have a large enough sample size to pick a small number of good players out of the whole.

I don't think yoy know much about the alternatives.

Quote from: Mr. GC;590803If you were paying attention, you'd know character value has nothing to do with skills.

If you were really paying attention, you'd know that game value comes from actual depth, and that games in which everyone dies randomly by pure luck are bad.

Of course you are Sacro, you have done none of these things.

If you're going to try to shift the goalposts, you're going to have to better than this weak attempt.


Did you or did you not say, several times, that it's easy to create a gimp character in 3e, and you have to actually try to create a good one by optimizing?

Yes, yes you did say that.  That's sort of the crux of your entire argument.  And MGuy just got done tying character value to skills.  SMH.  These are things that do not exist in other editions.  Ergo, 3e must be a really shit system because the problems you are bitching about don't exist in other editions.  You are literally bitching about all these problems that are almost exclusively 3.x only.

I keep hoping that you'd have at least an once of integrity, but I guess not.  And no, this time I won't give you benefit of the doubt for being a kid.  Even my 10 year old has more integrity than you, so it's not an age thing at all.

Quote from: Imperator;590804Yeah, 3.0 and 3.5 are probably my least favourite versions of D&D (haven't played/run enough 4th to decide), but reading people like GC or Mistborn with the constant whining about how many classes/skills/feats/spells are broken make the game less and less attractive.

Well, anyway, 99% of the stuff that is discussed as a problem in D&D is nonexistent in RQ


I don't think yoy know much about the alternatives.

I know that they have even fewer good options and even less appeal even with those options.

But really, what do you expect? If you're a tabletop game writer, and your 16 year old son just got a job at McDonalds last week he's probably getting paid more than you. It isn't a field that attracts talent, so of course there's no quality work.

Often, when something good does come of it it's by pure accident... the D&D designers hardly imagined the emergent gameplay that resulted from their ruleset, instead they thought things like "Fighters tank herpityderp, even though we totally forgot to give them aggro mechanics and totally forgot to make them hittable on something better than a negative 10!"

Quote from: Sacrosanct;590597I know you're only like 13 in real life, but here's a hint.  When you say something or otherwise make a claim, and someone points out how fundamentally flawed it is?  You can't just say something like you just did without coming off as an immature spoiled brat.

Just saying.  No one is ever going to take you seriously if on every time you are presented with something that shows how you are wrong, you just dismiss it rather than actually back up what you said in the first place.

If you want to have an adult conversation, start behaving like an adult.

Don't bother. He does not understand.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799I'm using the same general criteria here.  My points are not about 'what makes a Basketweaver', which has already been discussed - they are about what to do with a basketweaver when you have one.  An underoptimized character can be just as much a disruption to the game as an overly optimized character.  

Actually it's not clear at all what a "basketweaver" is.  Mguy and GC for example have quite different definitions.  You look like you're more in the Mguy camp, which seems to be "I know it when I see it."

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799Of course 'the group' gets to make that decision.  Bringing a basketweaver to the game is a lot like brining a Chaotic Evil Rogue to a game with a Paladin at the table - the fact is, they're incompatible.  One or the other (or both) have to go.  Or, if you choose to allow it, you're going to run into problems down the road.  The types of problems have also been discussed, but it tends to be that the 'basketweaver' wants to contribute but lacks the ability to do so...  Either the basketweaver is sidelined, or the game is put on 'easy mode' so that suddenly you're killing Bin Laden by baking a meal that he's allergic too, not assaulting the place with guns blazing.  That's only alright if that's what everyone signed on for.  

So there is no threat from "basketweavers" to gaming as a whole?  So you're not with GC to that point?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799So, there are no skills that require max ranks to be survivable.

Ok, we're back to know it when I see it, because there is no set definiton.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799But it is possible to make a character that is functionally unable to contribute to the adventuring team.

Again waiting for a clear-cut definition here, but we all know it's not going to happen.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799A good example would be insisting on playing a low-level Commoner in a high-level game.  Another example would be taking a 'Vow of Non-Violence'.

What if the low-level commoner was a local and knew everyone in the city while the other PCs were foreigners?  Couldn't that person fill a role like your Aristocrat did?

When you take the various Vows (assuming you're taking from the Book of Exalted Deeds) don't they give you bonuses, like non-violence makes all your non-violent spells harder to resist, Sleeps/Holds/Charms whatever?  Aren't there literally hundreds of spells a Cleric/Magic-User could use that don't involve melting faces?  I thought one of the key elements of the Fighter v. Wizard debate was that Wizards and Clerics can do anything via spells?  The spell slots are limited.  I can't melt faces every combat and do anything via spells, can I?  So aren't the Vows something like a personal Geas - meaning I reduce my overall ability to focus on certain things?  In any case, I find it hard to believe that a Priestess of a Healing god who took that Vow would be less useful then an Aristocrat.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799It's also possible to make a character that is effective, even if they aren't optimized.  For example, in a game based on historical/mythic Iceland/Greenland I played a character who took Aristocrat for his first level.  I could have taken a more optimal choice, but it suited the character and the background, and I made some effective choices in other ways so he didn't 'hold the team back' and in fact, he was able to make contributions as the 'face'.  

So now what you're saying is - it's not only a different culture at every table, but also highly situational based on what that group is currently doing.  So Table-Conditional as well as Campaign-Conditional.

You're moving quickly from "I know it when I see it" to "Mythical internet strawmen that never appears in real life."

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799A basketweaver is somoene who fails to accomodate themselves to the group norms - and is only one such example.  As a result, there is no objective definition of 'this is a basketweaver' because the group's 'center' has to be known.

So let me recap.  Your definition of basketweaver is...
1. Table-Conditional - It depends group to group.
2. Campaign-Conditional - It some campaigns an Aristocrat may actually be helpful.
3. Is really just a term meaning "disruptive player".

Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799What do you want me to prove?  What form of proof would you find convincing?

Well, based on your definition of basket-weaving above, there is no proof to be had, because the definition is not only going to change group by group, but campaign by campaign.

The rest of the stuff you mentioned, I'm pretty sure was left over from Wizard v. Fighter, so will drop it.  I will simply say this...

I find the argument that Fighters are worthless coming from a guy who justified playing an Aristocrat to be very interesting.

GC, do you agree with Dead's definition of basket-weaver?

Quote from: CRKrueger;590811GC, do you agree with Dead's definition of basket-weaver?

Nope, most people are using an entirely non standard definition of the term. At least we've mostly gotten away from the literal basket weaving, but he's still talking about something else entirely from what those words actually mean.

Quote from: Mr. GC;590816Nope, most people are using an entirely non standard definition of the term. At least we've mostly gotten away from the literal basket weaving, but he's still talking about something else entirely from what those words actually mean.

Ok, can you give an example of a couple 5th level characters that are "basket-weavers"?  One caster and one non-caster, include feat and spell selection.  I'm asking because this is obviously not a CharOp board.

It's hard to discuss things when no one is clear exactly what we're talking about.

Quote from: Imperator;590804Well, anyway, 99% of the stuff that is discussed as a problem in D&D is nonexistent in RQ

Runequest?  Swine!  

What are your opinions on Openquest?