Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;626234Nice house rule.  1" = 10 feet = melee range in RAW AD&D (read the combat section, it's quite illuminating).

I love how you continually spit stupidity and call me an asshole for it.

On page 10 of the DMG, under "Use of Miniature Figures With the Game", it tells us that the rule of thumb is similar to all our other games with 1" being representative of 6'.  That is, they recommend inch wide squares and they don't represent 10'.  That's what's written...what you are suggesting doesn't exist in the text.

I challenge you to provide the page reference where this is delineated.  The only time it talks about scale is in reference to movement and exploration, dealing with how the modules were set up at the time.  There is absolutely nothing stating that I can't represent a single 10' map square with four 5' squares - in fact I just showed you the reference where, if you read it, you'll figure out it's not a house rule.  Oh wait, we use 2 squares, not recommendation of 3 for a 10' wide corridor (1 square wide) - because the tiles and other items we have are set up this way.  It's also easier to measure if we're using the wargames board and not tiles.  In the same passage, it suggests that 1 figure to a square is correct by using the recommendation of 6' you can situate 3 characters in a rank.

There is no discussion in the combat section that states this is melee range, you're making shit up now thinking that I don't have all these books directly in front of me.  Now, the movement rules are actually on p. 102 of the PHB.  You can start your refresher course there.  Do it, before you post again.

If you can cite that passage you claim exists, I'll eat my words.  I often do when a player proves me wrong at the table - which happens all the time.   They use the books, however.  Conjecture and speculation are not allowed.

Also, to your suggestion that I don't know the rules very well...

Well, find and reference that passage you were talking about and we'll see how it goes from there.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;626234In all seriousness, you act like a complete shitheel to the people that come in here and attempt to help you in good faith, and then accuse them of trolling.  

If that's your take on this, your comprehension levels are lower than I thought.

Quote from: Captain Video;626224Benoist, you I want to thank the most, your bile filled comments, have truly inspired me to come at this with new focus. Every gnoll, bugbear, gelatinous cube will secretly wear your name. And my group will win, using the rules, as they were written. As the designers of the game intended, as the pioneers of the game we all claim to love intended. Because thats what our project is all about. Gaming is as near and dear to me, ive played in alot of different groups. But im not quite old enough to have experienced Dungeons and Dragons in its original form ,which directly evolved from WARGAMES. i think thats something that no one on this thread has brought up. The 1st edition is only a few steps removed from true tactical wargames, it is my and our clubs belief that this is how the game was intended to be played.

You are very welcome. I hope you have loads of fun killing gnolls, bugbears and gelatinous cubes. If them bearing my name makes it more fun, by all means, let's have at it, hack and slash away!

As for the original intent of the game, I dare say you might be a tad mistaken there. There wasn't an intent to adhere to the letter of the rules at all costs. Quite the contrary, actually: "It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important" (DMG Afterword, page 230). And if the game did evolve from wargames, it evolved from the miniatures wargames of the time (and Diplomacy variants, Braunsteins, etc), which were a different animal than the hex and chit wargames. The nature of the rules, the role of the referee in the confrontations, the natural house ruling that occurred... this was much different from what you might recognize today as "tactical miniatures wargaming" in games like Warhammer 40K, D&D Skirmish games and the like, and that legacy of the late 60s early 70s is part of what made the Original D&D game what it is, and by extension, what made 1st edition what it is, the "Advanced game", as it were, as opposed to the RAW paradigm you describe.

You might enjoy reading Playing at the World, by Jon Peterson. It goes into the origins of the game, including wargames, Diplomacy variants, fiction influences, etc, and you'll see what I'm talking about here described in depth. It's a good read.

Quote from: One Horse Town;624895Yeah, i wouldn't give a fuck about that game either.

Certainly this would explain the gradual sway towards evil characters.

Welcome back, Kyle!

Quote from: Blackhand;624830This is not "Free Range Greyhawk" style play.  This is a focused scenario:  we are playing The Temple of Elemental Evil.

For focused play to work with frequent PC death and a megadungeon type environment, you need a hook that can bind them all together. Eg all the PCs could be members of the same organisation - a religious crusading order (St Cuthbert?), or agents for the Archcleric, or part of a mercenary guild hired to clear the Temple, etc.

Either this hook is provided by the GM, or created by the players in discussion at the start of the campaign. Either way, it will normally involve restrictions on Alignment and perhaps on race & class too.

This mess seems to have arisen because the group has fallen in between traditional Gygaxian 'Free Range Greyhawk' play, which is player-centric (each player typically has a stable of PCs each pursuing their own agenda, who come together for single-session delves into the megadungeon), and on the other hand Dragonlance style linear questing. You need to decide which you are doing.

Quote from: Captain Video;6262242. If someone else doesnt do it, i intend to play a representative of the Archcleric who recently arrived in Hommlet. My characters mission will be to seek good adventurers who will see the need to destroy the blight of the temple for its own sake. Not for riches, or fame, in fact our mission must be secret. We must not bring down greater evil to the temple prematurely. I will suggest to the characters that we will take a vow or mark, dedicating our selves  to utterly destroying the Temple. Our allegence to the Archcleric might give us access to other likeminded indivduals should any more of our number fall to the temples minions. The crux of the matter is that all of the players must under stand that only as a unified front will our few number be able to complete this task.

Yes, this is a good approach. If the GM wants directed play but won't provide a structure to support it, the players need to come up with something themselves. This is what you have done here, so good work.

Quote from: Piestrio;626111Once again I'll remind everyone that Gliechman is the one who argued that if you ignored or changed rules in a game you are a BAD PERSON, as in MORALLY SUSPECT and possible contributing to the decline of society.

Really. He said that.

The man is a class one imbecile.

I like how for him the very qualities that allowed man to climb out of the primordial muck and build great civilizations, outside-the-box thinking, is a horrifying and degenerate character flaw.

He really is a subhuman piece of shit, isn't he?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;628801He really is a subhuman piece of shit, isn't he?

RPGPundit

Follow me around in the threads and rant and rage little cartoon character.

Quote from: gleichman;628814Follow me around in the threads and rant and rage little cartoon character.

Well, you did tell him to "read [his] own forum".  Being appalled at gleichman is just one of the many benefits of being a regular reader around here.

Greyhawk Campaign Update (updated every week on Mondays)

The first encounter was beyond disastrous.

Manticore + Lightning Bolt = Cave In = Deaths.

Quote

Quote from: mcbobbo;625332So if you're doing everything right, and everyone is happy, what kind of circle jerk is this thread?

Quote from: One Horse Town;626021Why don't you get the players that have piped up here to post their thoughts on how to improve things - or, you know, cut out us middle-men and have the conversation face to face.

Yeaaah, that's kinda where I'm at too. And if this discussion was started in good faith simply out of curiosity to see what other people's opinions on the matter...yeah, I can't even finish that thought with a straight face.

Quote from: Fiasco;626014Blackhand loves it RAW but he doesn't allow women at his table. Beware your bedfellows, Gleichman.

There's nothing wrong with having 'man time'. It's one of the geek fallicies tha...

Quote from: Blackhand;481420All of this is appreciated, but I've done my time with women gamers.

Did you ever think that one of the reasons the flgs makes women uncomfortable is because there's nothing interesting for them and the nerds in there are wondering what she's doing there and who's girlfriend she is?

And I'm impressed at how concisely he's able to address every problematic stereotype in just two short sentences.

Quote from: One Horse Town;626021Likewise, you'd think that Blackhand and Gleichman are under some delusion (shared by many a Goon, i might add) that this forum is a person. The RPGsite thinks this and theRPGsite thinks that. They do this, they think that.

It's a culture, and therefore has a persona, of which you BTW are the epitome of.

Quote from: Blackhand;625811I really don't understand all the hate coming up from this.

Um, bullshit?

You've been here too long not to know what to expect here.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;629865It's a culture, and therefore has a persona, of which you BTW are the epitome of.

Thanks! I've never been an epitome before.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;629865And if this discussion was started in good faith simply out of curiosity to see what other people's opinions on the matter...yeah, I can't even finish that thought with a straight face.

So it's not cool to post threads in good faith out of curiosity to gauge opinion here on this board.

That really reduces it's usefulness and relevance to most people.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;629865You've been here too long not to know what to expect here.

I've been here too long to know what to expect here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;628801I like how for him the very qualities that allowed man to climb out of the primordial muck and build great civilizations, outside-the-box thinking, is a horrifying and degenerate character flaw.

He really is a subhuman piece of shit, isn't he?

RPGPundit

Is there a Gleichman FAQ or "best of Gleichman" compilation out there which gives citations for all this stuff?

Quote from: One Horse Town;629867I've never been an epitome before.

I think of you as more of an instantiation, myself.