Quote from: Jaeger;677186I couldn't be bothered either so no worries...

But it was more like me being eye-rolling sarcastic.

If anything when someone says that they hate random chargen it seems to get the random chargen lovers panties in a bunch.

That if someone doesn't like random chargen the same old lables get trotted out:

They must be a min-maxer.
It must be whiney player entitlement.
They are 'missing' something fundamental to the (true?) D&D expierience.
They're 'weak'
etc. etc...

One doesn't seem to be allowed dislike random chargen as a legitimate play style preference, it is always for this or that negative reason, there seems to be no agreeing to disagree.

Lots of guys on this thread like rolling for ability scores, I don't see the appeal, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Honestly, I don't use random chargen. Character Modelling ala FASERIP is my preferred method. I was in that instance specifically referring to a poster in this thread, not making a universal condemnation.

Quote from: The_Rooster;677108OMG! I've been having badwrongfun for 25 years! FUCK! ME!

Please teach me how to have fun the right way?

I've seen children playing baseball.  Sometimes they throw dirt at each other, sometimes they hit the ball and run to 3rd base instead of first.  Sometimes they make up rules that make no sense at all.  They appear to be having a blast, but yes, they are playing the game the wrong way.

Quote from: Jaeger;677186I couldn't be bothered either so no worries...

But it was more like me being eye-rolling sarcastic.

If anything when someone says that they hate random chargen it seems to get the random chargen lovers panties in a bunch.

That if someone doesn't like random chargen the same old lables get trotted out:

They must be a min-maxer.
It must be whiney player entitlement.
They are 'missing' something fundamental to the (true?) D&D expierience.
They're 'weak'
etc. etc...

One doesn't seem to be allowed dislike random chargen as a legitimate play style preference, it is always for this or that negative reason, there seems to be no agreeing to disagree...

Lots of guys on this thread like rolling for ability scores, I don't see the appeal, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, one-true-wayism has pretty much taken over this board. It could have been a free-wheeling alternative to RPGnet with a slant towards traditional games. But at this point, the RPGsite is a full-blown old-school D&D forum, not much different from Knights and Knaves Alehouse.

With a light modding policy, there's the potential for this site to foster broad and free-ranging discussion. But in practice, this an extremely conformist site, where 95 per cent of the posters have a very narrow notion of what makes for an acceptable RPG.

I take complaints about 'one-true-wayism' a lot more seriously though when they don't come from a guy spouting nonsense about how anyone who plays differently than him " doesn't know anything about good game design" or is incapable of understanding why sacred cows like "balance" don't really have any value when you're not playing one or two specific games.

Also, quite frankly, there is a reason minmaxing aka char-op is considered antithetical to role-playing, and it's pretty much the same reason as storygaming. There is an activity called role-playing. If someone is playing monopoly it's perfectly fair to say ' no, that's not roleplaying'. Thats not onetruewayism, just stating the obvious. Similarly, there's a number of people, especially it seems when it comes to D&D , may be using the rules for D&D but don't actually Roleplay. And there is also such a thing as BAD role playing. Terms like powerger and minmaxer were coined to describe this.

That doesn't mean 'badwrongfun', meaning I could give a crap how others chose to play make- believe, but it does mean that they are engaging in an activity that has nothing to do with the hobby I participate in.

Plus, quite frankly, I tend to go ahead and express my personal tastes without alluding to them as such or making concessions for other POV when dealing with people doing the same, because 1) they're asking for it and 2) everyone should, if they are a sane adult of even moderate intelligence, know without being told that no matter what anyone posts online, it is ALWAYS subjective, it is ALWAYS their opinion or POV , and someone can ALWAYS disagree and do what they like, and if it affects them that someone doesn't care for their brand of elf games, that's completely their fault and insecurities.

3rd and 4th edition D&D are built around the idea that players will actively engage with the system to try to build a powerful character. Charop/min-maxing is the foundation of play and complaining about it seems silly.  

I would accept that this is nowhere near as true of TSR D&D though.

Quote from: soviet;6772223rd and 4th edition D&D are built around the idea that players will actively engage with the system to try to build a powerful character. Charop/min-maxing is the foundation of play and complaining about it seems silly.  

I would accept that this is nowhere near as true of TSR D&D though.

Yep, which is mainly why I don't consider WOTC D&D to be D& D in anything but name. It's a different game, one designed to sell more and more books rather than provide the best 'role-playing' experience.

5e seems to be promoted as an attempt to correct that, but I'm skeptical so far. But the best sign to me is when the 4evengers start throwing fits about how it's 'badly designed' That at least indicates to me the possibility the game is adopting D&D design paradigms rather than 4e's " superdungeoncrawlers" power gamer orgy game design intentions.

Fair enough.

I don't really get what they are trying to do with Next. It seems to me that there are three basic flavours of D&D being played out in the wild: old school TSR, complex and gamey but broken with a thin veneer of verisimilitude 3e, and complex and gamey but maybe too gamey 4e. These are three different kinds of game. People that want old school D&D already have it. People that want rules for rules sake already have it. People that want to really push the wargaming/challenge aspect already have it. What's Next's niche?

It seems to me they should have published a polished up hybrid of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D with modern art and production values, put it in a box as an evergreen product they could sell at Toys R Us, and called it a fucking day.

Quote from: soviet;677228It seems to me they should have published a polished up hybrid of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D with modern art and production values, put it in a box as an evergreen product they could sell at Toys R Us, and called it a fucking day.

I've long maintained that the best thing that could happen to the hobby would be for WOTC to stop "developing" D&D. Just make a game, put it in stores and print it forever.

No more splats. No more supplaments. No more accessories. No add-ons, expansions, enhancements, etc...

Just you, a basic framework and your imagination.

Maybe slap a new coat of paint on it every now and again (tie-ins with popular media?) but otherwise leave it the fuck alone.

Quote from: soviet;677228Fair enough.

I don't really get what they are trying to do with Next. It seems to me that there are three basic flavours of D&D being played out in the wild: old school TSR, complex and gamey but broken with a thin veneer of verisimilitude 3e, and complex and gamey but maybe too gamey 4e. These are three different kinds of game. People that want old school D&D already have it. People that want rules for rules sake already have it. People that want to really push the wargaming/challenge aspect already have it. What's Next's niche?

It seems to me they should have published a polished up hybrid of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D with modern art and production values, put it in a box as an evergreen product they could sell at Toys R Us, and called it a fucking day.

I agree, and yes it confuses me as well. I've stopped reading the play test packets am I'm just sort of waiting it out for now. I've got lots of other games to play, and these days I prefer to design my own anyways. My interest is more in regards to how this will affect the next generation of gamers introduced to the hobby.

Quote from: Brad;677133Miguel Cabrera gets three strikes, not four, no matter how much he believes it'd make hitting more enjoyable.

Miguel Cabrera rarely needs three strikes, let alone four.

Quote from: TristramEvans;677233I agree, and yes it confuses me as well. I've stopped reading the play test packets am I'm just sort of waiting it out for now.

You do realise that the entire point of playtest packets is to... play... test... the packets... right? They're experiments, not a game system. That's why it's healthy to discuss the advantages and disadvantages and, yes, system mechanics and balance (which seem to be two very bad words here).

Quote from: TristramEvans;677215I take complaints about 'one-true-wayism' a lot more seriously though when they don't come from a guy spouting nonsense about how anyone who plays differently than him " doesn't know anything about good game design" or is incapable of understanding why sacred cows like "balance" don't really have any value when you're not playing one or two specific games.

I don't give a flying rat fuck how you play the game. My criticism is in being told that the system is just fine as it is when it's clearly broken and needs significant work to balance it.

The fact that you can't get that ANY system can be played with or without roleplaying and that roleplaying is entirely independent of system (here's a clue, roleplaying doesn't require a system at all!), is the disturbing thing. You purists are all so damned blind that you don't even see what you're saying. That a system dictates roleplaying. Umm... yeah... no.

Quote from: TristramEvans;677215Also, quite frankly, there is a reason minmaxing aka char-op is considered antithetical to role-playing, and it's pretty much the same reason as storygaming. There is an activity called role-playing. If someone is playing monopoly it's perfectly fair to say ' no, that's not roleplaying'. Thats not onetruewayism, just stating the obvious. Similarly, there's a number of people, especially it seems when it comes to D&D , may be using the rules for D&D but don't actually Roleplay. And there is also such a thing as BAD role playing. Terms like powerger and minmaxer were coined to describe this.

There's this thing called roleplaying. And it can be done in Monopoly just as easily as it can be done in any other game, or even without a game. I know this is a revolutionary concept to people like you, but it's true. You don't have to be playing D&D (the true D&D of course, you know, whatever version you think that is) to do it.

The fact that you can't see how someone could both be a powergamer or min-maxer and still roleplay is just... sad. Your extremely narrow view of what is acceptable roleplaying is most definitely onetruewayism. The fact that it limits you and not me is... well... your problem, not mine.

Also, powergaming and min/maxing have never, ever, been born of the need to call someone a bad roleplayer. That's just the connotation that people like you have attached to it. Incorrectly.

Quote from: TristramEvans;677215That doesn't mean 'badwrongfun', meaning I could give a crap how others chose to play make- believe, but it does mean that they are engaging in an activity that has nothing to do with the hobby I participate in.

Gods. Do you even realise what you're saying? I swear that you're like a Westboro Baptist. "It's not the wrong way as long as it's the right way!"

Come on man, even you must see the hypocrisy in your own statement now that it's pointed out to you? If you can't then... wow.... just... wow.

Quote from: JRR;677204I've seen children playing baseball.  Sometimes they throw dirt at each other, sometimes they hit the ball and run to 3rd base instead of first.  Sometimes they make up rules that make no sense at all.  They appear to be having a blast, but yes, they are playing the game the wrong way.

This is pretty much the badwrongfun manifesto. "That's not my game 'cause you're doing it wrong and my game is the right way to play!"

Quote from: Sacrosanct;677158your problem is that you want D&D to be a literal storygame and are quick to resort fallacies and attacks to anyone who doesn't agree

This is all you've done since coming into this thread. It's almost as if you had no interest in a conversation and only wanted to start an argument.

I just picked several nostril hairs and it made my eye water.

Quote from: soviet;6772223rd and 4th edition D&D are built around the idea that players will actively engage with the system to try to build a powerful character. Charop/min-maxing is the foundation of play and complaining about it seems silly.  

I would accept that this is nowhere near as true of TSR D&D though.

Anyone who thinks WotC are going to try to make a popular, modern, mainstream iteration of D&D that will sell in the 10s of thousands and ignore char op is either hopelessly obtuse or just trolling. If WotC really wanted to publish a version of D&D that would turn its back on the entire 3E, Pathfinder, and 4E players bases, then they would have just kickstarted their own OSR project.

Quote from: Piestrio;677230I've long maintained that the best thing that could happen to the hobby would be for WOTC to stop "developing" D&D. Just make a game, put it in stores and print it forever.

No more splats. No more supplaments. No more accessories. No add-ons, expansions, enhancements, etc...

Just you, a basic framework and your imagination.

Maybe slap a new coat of paint on it every now and again (tie-ins with popular media?) but otherwise leave it the fuck alone.

Would you invest in a company that adopted that business model?

Quote from: The_Rooster;677255You do realise that the entire point of playtest packets is to... play... test... the packets... right? They're experiments, not a game system. That's why it's healthy to discuss the advantages and disadvantages and, yes, system mechanics and balance (which seem to be two very bad words here).

I'm not participating in the play test. I frankly don't care enough. I'll judge the game when it's finished. Honestly, if WoTc gave up on D&D and stopped publishing RPGs altogether I wouldn't necessarily consider that a bad thing. The role playing industry has always been the worste part of the role playing hobby.

QuoteI don't give a flying rat fuck how you play the game. My criticism is in being told that the system is just fine as it is when it's clearly broken and needs significant work to balance it.

What you give a flying frell about is nothing to do with what you don't comprehend. Try looking at it this way: take the population of a small North American city. Now ask yourself how 'balanced' it is.

QuoteThe fact that you can't get that ANY system can be played with or without roleplaying and that roleplaying is entirely independent of system (here's a clue, roleplaying doesn't require a system at all!), is the disturbing thing. You purists are all so damned blind that you don't even see what you're saying. That a system dictates roleplaying. Umm... yeah... no.

Nothing to do with anything I've said, so I'm just going to ignore all that.

QuoteThere's this thing called roleplaying. And it can be done in Monopoly just as easily as it can be done in any other game, or even without a game.

There's this thing called 'roleplaying games' and their purpose is to facilitate and encourage role playing so it's not only easier, but in fact the point of the game. But since you have a game with perfect balance like Monopoly, why bother worrying about D&D? You can Roleplay to your hearts content during a game of checkers. Concepts like 'reality clash', 'versimilitude', 'disassociation' and 'emulation' obviously don't enter into it for you. Hence my increasingly accurate observation that whatever you're doing has nothing to do with the hobby I participate in.

Quoteknow this is a revolutionary concept to people like you, but it's true. You don't have to be playing D&D (the true D&D of course, you know, whatever version you think that is) to do it.

Considering that I don't play D&D, perhaps you may want to check out the dictionary definition of the word 'know'...

QuoteThe fact that you can't see how someone could both be a powergamer or min-maxer and still roleplay is just... sad. Your extremely narrow view of what is acceptable roleplaying is most definitely onetruewayism. The fact that it limits you and not me is... well... your problem, not mine.

...and "fact". Notice I didn't say power gaming and minmaxing wasn't roleplaying (except in the literal sense that it's not actually 'playing a role'). You'll excuse me if I don't feel sad over your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Don't worry it's probably not your fault. You were probably subjected to the American education system.

QuoteAlso, powergaming and min/maxing have never, ever, been born of the need to call someone a bad roleplayer. That's just the connotation that people like you have attached to it. Incorrectly.

Lol. Okay, you're ignorant. Big surprise.

QuoteGods. Do you even realise what you're saying? I swear that you're like a Westboro Baptist. "It's not the wrong way as long as it's the right way!"

It's not hockey if you're dribbling a bouncy ball and throwing it into net. Cute Godwin there, though. But false equivilance in every sense of phrase.

Quote from: Haffrung;677268Would you invest in a company that adopted that business model?

It wouldn't be impossible as one element of a larger protfolio of products.

An evergreen product with periodic market extensions isn't an outlandish idea.