TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 03:12:18 PM

Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;571320
Yeah but at that point you might as well be playing AD&D 1, if you're not in it for the autistic number fellating.
Absolutely. I mean, that's exactly what happened to me. I was running 3rd ed, was liking the game well enough, was regularly annoyed at the rules OCD that became unavoidable on any thread about the game on ENWorld and w/e, and suddenly wondered "why the fuck am I bothering with this game exactly?" I hit the pause button when my Ptolus campaign came to an end, thought about it for a while, and tried OD&D to come back later to AD&D. The basic idea was indeed "why spend my time number crunching bullshit while I could build cool adventuring environments and care for the actual game instead?" That was it.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;571320
Here's the problem with 3rd edition...the people for whom it is the game of choice are assholes.

Just to be clear...I'm not stating that playing the game makes them assholes...merely that the game appeals to them precisely BECAUSE they are assholes.
I think it's undeniable at this point that there are certain types of players, which we would have called rules lawyers, munchkins, power gamers, selfish bastards in years past, that are specifically cattered to by this OCD game design. That makes no fucking doubt in my mind. And the OCD types of course eat it with a spoon.

At this point it's part of the DNA of the game. Have you seen the attention to careful rules twinkery in a contest like Paizo's "RPG Superstar", what they think makes good and bad design? That's actually telling. Big time.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;571320
D&D 3rd edition takes all of the shittiest gamer traits and rewards them. That game is written for rules lawyers, and munchkins, and powergamers...just running the game at upper levels is a rules mastery arms race, or else whoever has the most sourcebooks is just going to bully the rest of the table around. This is the target audience for 3E...the most whiny, petulant, entitled, self-centered, antisocial gamers out there. The fact that it appears to be the most popular just goes to show how utterly feculent the hobby has become, and why it deserves to die.
I got a different approach. If people want to play it to death and love their rules-twink, fine. Just keep gaming with it. I just won't approach a 3rd ed game table where I don't know the players first. And I'll keep on running the actual games I care about. If that makes these guys think "eww... that guy's game stinks. I need more rules fudge to have fun. PASS" so be it: I don't want you at my game table either!

Quote from: Declan MacManus;571320
And rest assured...it will die. Eventually the shitwalll barring entry will become so impenetrable that no one new will join...and the old guard will all die of renal failure. We aren't keeping it alive...we're keeping it hooked up to machines like Terry Schiavo. I give it two agonizing decades of lingering, rotting, slow death.
I don't know. Maybe. It seems that the d20 system itself is very adaptable, can be reinvented time and time again. It just seems to me that the OGL will engender a never ending stream of reinvention of 3rd ed over and over. I don't see the game die any time soon, to be honest.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 14, 2012, 03:21:03 PM
I think that the system is a secondary point to the feel of the game that's set by the GM.

I've run a LOT of d20.  When I moved to North Carolina I wound up with a group that wasn't as interested in my staple games of choice (Rifts and Cyberpunk) and so I wound up running D&D 3.0.  There were some people who tried to game that system, but it didn't really become a thing until 3.5.  At that point I made it known to my friends that if they couldn't be trusted to play the game the way it was intended, in my judgement (mirroring the feel of parts of 1e and 2e to me) then I'd be happy to run something that didn't require them to be so tempted.

They didn't want to run, so they accepted that.  As we brought in new players, they were able to pick up on the feel of how the game was run well enough to not have to be directly briefed on it.  I didn't allow splatbooks, I didn't allow some of the core classes from the Complete books, and any prestige class was by GM permission only, so I didn't have much of a problem with it.

I don't think that ANY system can be categorically defined as being 'only for moron asshats'.  It's all about how the game is played and how involved the GM chooses to be in the process.

Much like Ben said, if people don't like it, they're welcome to go find a group that suits their needs.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 14, 2012, 03:26:29 PM
"why spend my time number crunching bullshit while I could build cool adventuring environments and care for the actual game instead?"


Well said, Benoist
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 14, 2012, 03:27:40 PM
Quote from: Benoist;571334
Absolutely. I mean, that's exactly what happened to me. I was running 3rd ed, was liking the game well enough, was regularly annoyed at the rules OCD that became unavoidable on any thread about the game on ENWorld and w/e, and suddenly wondered "what the fuck am I bothering with this game exactly?" I hit the pause button when my Ptolus campaign came to an end, thought about it for a while, and tried OD&D to come back later to AD&D. The basic reflexion was indeed "why spend my time number crunching bullshit while I could build cool adventuring environments and care for the actual game instead?" That was it.


Tried it when it came out. It was fun until everyone started talking about their "builds".

We never used to "build" characters. We rolled up characters, bought equipment and played.

That's when we went back to our houseruled RC.

It's not that I don't like modern design...it's that it always seems to be player centric, which leads to charop fappery and rules cock swinging. D&D is supposed to be about the adventure...not some fucking schmucks spiked chain feats.

Quote from: Benoist;571334

I think it's undeniable at this point that there are certain types of players, which we would have called rules lawyers, munchkins, power gamers, selfish bastards in years past, that are specifically cattered to by this OCD game design. That makes no fucking doubt in my mind. And the ODC types of course eat it with a spoon.

I got a different approach. If people want to play it to death and love their rules-twink, fine. Just keep gaming with it. I just won't approach a 3rd ed game table where I don't know the players first. And I'll keep on running the actual games I care about. If that makes these guys think "eww... that guy's game stink. I need more rules fudge to have fun. PASS" so be it: I don't want you at my game table either!


Which makes me wonder why they play D&D at all instead of Magic: The Gathering...why turn a perfectly good roleplaying game into competitive masturbation for high functioning autistics?

That's why I don't play with gamers anymore. I've got my good friends that I played D&D with in school...and I've got whatever nongamers I recruit. If I can't pull a group together, then I just don'tplay. No gamign is better than bad gaming in my book.

Quote from: Benoist;571334

I don't know. Maybe. It seems that the d20 system itself is very adaptable, can be reinvented time and time again. It just seems to me that the OGL will engender a never ending stream of reinvention of 3rd ed over and over. I don't see the game die any time soon, to be honest.


The only thing it's ever going to produce is shitty 3e clones and Mutants & Masterminds. That's it.

D&D 4 tried to move the game forward, albeit in the wrong direction, and was met with shrieking temper tantrums from blustering asscunt Paizo disciples just because it dared to limit munchkinry. For a while I was hoping that 4E and Pathfinder would be wildly successful so that both camps would be nicely segregated from the rest of us and I would never actually have to deal with them...but alas. Now I just hope it all fails and rpg's become conclaves of home made rules and DIY adventures.

The hobby might not be dead, but if the future is 3rd edition forever and ever, does it really deserve to be alive? The game might as well be a CCG at this point.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 14, 2012, 03:29:53 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;571340

Much like Ben said, if people don't like it, they're welcome to go find a group that suits their needs.


I don't believe in that hippy bullshit.

I believe that opinions that are different from mine are dangerous and nonsensical and therefore must be bludgeoned out of existence.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 14, 2012, 03:35:40 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;571351
I don't believe in that hippy bullshit.

I believe that opinions that are different from mine are dangerous and nonsensical and therefore must be bludgeoned out of existence.


Ah, I see.  I suppose it would always come down to who has the bigger hammer :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 14, 2012, 03:38:29 PM
You guys must have had your girlfriends leave you for a 3e player or something.  I sense a lot of anger there...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 14, 2012, 03:38:49 PM
I could go around saying that 2nd ed is for gygax fellating asshats who's collective stench kept the TTRPG market in the dark recesses of the world and built a culture that people found reclusive and repulsive and that only the advent of 3rd and fourth edition along with videogames have brought it much closer to the light. Hell I could even say games like Skyrim and WoW are popularizing RPGs such that regular people can actually get into the market as opposed to the neckbearded grognards that built such a bad reputation for the game in their time. I could point out 3rd's overwhelming success and continued success in the pathfinder analogue is evidence of a superior system or organization that shows that third had more staying power than previous editions since 4th didn't thrust it into obscurity.

I could rant for hours about how some game prooduces some kind of assholes based on questionable evidence and popular theory. However, I'm not going to because I don't believe in any of the shit said in the OP or any of the shit I just said. It's all garbage. People like what they like. It is as simple as that. Making a thread to call people who like something you don't like is just making yourself out to be an asshole. People like 4th ed? I don't give a fuck. I don't I have my reasons, I don't play it. People like 2nd ed? I don't, I have my reasons, I don't play it. I associate with people who like 4e, WhiteWolf stuff, larping, GURPs, Warhammer Fantassy, on a regular basis and I don't give a shit that they like shit I don't like and don't think less of them for it.

This is a stupid thread made off of a stupid idea to further exalt some particular fashion of play that someone has.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Imp on August 14, 2012, 03:40:26 PM
Whenever Elvis Costello here goes off on 3e I'm reminded of that old Chris Rock bit:

I'm not saying you should have killed that 3e player...

BUT I UNDERSTAND.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 14, 2012, 03:40:29 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571359
You guys must have had your girlfriends leave you for a 3e player or something.  I sense a lot of anger there...


My girlfriends all leave me because "I am too nice" or "It's me, not you"

I can't pin it on 3E :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on August 14, 2012, 03:41:14 PM
That A+ thing already over?  :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 03:45:02 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;571348
Tried it when it came out. It was fun until everyone started talking about their "builds".

We never used to "build" characters. We rolled up characters, bought equipment and played.

That's when we went back to our houseruled RC.

It's not that I don't like modern design...it's that it always seems to be player centric, which leads to charop fappery and rules cock swinging. D&D is supposed to be about the adventure...not some fucking schmucks spiked chain feats.

Yeah, I completely agree with all that.

I mean, as I mentioned before, I did optimize and exploited loopholes and bullshit in my day. I've done it. It was fun for a while to find the "combo" and just have lulz with it in some game or other. But (1) it gets old super fast, because once you know what to look for, it just becomes way too easy to find it, (2) you're actually missing the point of the fucking game, to play the rules system as the game itself, and (3) whatever optimized character you have, the GM can fuck you up whenever he wants, by the rules, no fudging, just throwing shit at you until you die. There's just no contest, so the idea there's an arms race going on is stupid in the first place.

So yeah, I imagine that's something a lot of gamers do to experiment, for the shit and giggles and so on. It's like playing psychopaths in D&D - you do it once when you're 12 years old, but if you're still finding it fun after 20 years of gaming, dude, something's got to be wrong with your priorities playing the game.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;571348
Which makes me wonder why they play D&D at all instead of Magic: The Gathering...why turn a perfectly good roleplaying game into competitive masturbation for high functioning autistics?

Identification of the self-loathing nerd with his character, which he can't do with a deck of cards. Seriously. I think it comes down to catharsis.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;571348
That's why I don't play with gamers anymore. I've got my good friends that I played D&D with in school...and I've got whatever nongamers I recruit. If I can't pull a group together, then I just don'tplay. No gamign is better than bad gaming in my book.

I don't think all gamers are assholes. I can play with gamers. Many of them are not the assburgers you see roaming on internet forums posting their builds and having a 400 page argument about wizards versus fighters. It's a matter of knowing who's who, right?

That said, like you I prefer to play with friends and acquaintances, to introduce the games to new people and see them being excited about it and grow into their own, rather than play with gamers exclusively. No question about it.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;571348
The only thing it's ever going to produce is shitty 3e clones and Mutants & Masterminds. That's it.

D&D 4 tried to move the game forward, albeit in the wrong direction, and was met with shrieking temper tantrums from blustering asscunt Paizo disciples just because it dared to limit munchkinry. For a while I was hoping that 4E and Pathfinder would be wildly successful so that both camps would be nicely segregated from the rest of us and I would never actually have to deal with them...but alas. Now I just hope it all fails and rpg's become conclaves of home made rules and DIY adventures.

Fuck if I know what the future has in store at this point. I honestly have no clue.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;571348
The hobby might not be dead, but if the future is 3rd edition forever and ever, does it really deserve to be alive? The game might as well be a CCG at this point.

That I can answer to: the hobby will not die. Not as long as people play. And people play enough games that there'll always be an alternative to 3rd and d20 games. And if I can't find those tables when I want to play, I'll keep on running my games for whoever wants them. I'll never run out of games to play.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;571365
That A+ thing already over?  :D

Yeah, reality called. It wanted me back. ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 14, 2012, 03:46:25 PM
Quote from: MGuy;571360
I could go around saying that 2nd ed is for gygax fellating asshats who's collective stench kept the TTRPG market in the dark recesses of the world and built a culture that people found reclusive and repulsive and that only the advent of 3rd and fourth edition along with videogames have brought it much closer to the light..


You could, but then people would look at you like you went exponential retard.


Hint.  Gygax didn't have anything to do with 2e.


This is almost comical at the number of things you keep getting wrong.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 03:46:34 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571359
You guys must have had your girlfriends leave you for a 3e player or something.  I sense a lot of anger there...


LOL My wife actually started playing with 3rd ed. No anger on my part, here. :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 03:49:27 PM
Quote from: MGuy;571360
This is a stupid thread made off of a stupid idea to further exalt some particular fashion of play that someone has.


This one however, much anger I sense in him.

That's it Padawan... tell us how you really feel. Let go of your self. Give in to the Dark Side. :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 14, 2012, 03:51:54 PM
Quote from: Benoist;571375
This one however, much anger I sense in him.

That's it Padawan... tell us how you really feel. Let go of your self. Give in to the Dark Side. :D


Ironically that's about the only accurate thing he's said
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Derabar on August 14, 2012, 03:53:47 PM
I find your points interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Honestly, I've never come so close to ramming the corner of a rulebook into someone's aesophagus and watching them turn purple than when one of my ex-group told me in sphincter-clenching detail how he planned on advancing the wizard he'd played up to 7th level all the way to 15th, including what he was going to spend every goddamn gold piece on to 'enhance his build'.

I was going to post in the Adult Swim thread, but I'll do it here instead. I grew up with D&D about 30 years ago. I had RQ. I had Traveller. I had T&T, and a copy of the first Warhammer rules in a box (which my mother appears to have burnt or given away sometime while I was at uni...), but I wasn't a gamer, I was a D&D player. Fast forward 25 years and we got to the 3rd ed party late. And within months, sane rational gamers who I'd played about every possible 1sr ed PC combo with suddenly started talking about builds. Fuck the work the GM put into his game, show me the XP and loot so I can make my character more powerful, along a path I have already predetermined.

No. Thank. You.

So now I'm not a D&D player, I'm a gamer. I still look wistfully at the 1st ed books on my shelf like I might do at the sister of the girl who told me she loved me then proceeded to fuck everyone else in the dorm corridor behind my back. I use my 3.5 player's handbook to keep my plate steady while I eat dinner in front of the TV, and the rest of the books...couldn't even tell you where they are. So even when 5th ed was announced, they could have said, free blow jobs when you buy the new books, I just don't fucking care. If it gets new people into the hobby, then I might see the benefit if they think like 1st ed players. My worry is they think like 3rd ed players, in which case I'll be hiding at home with the curtains drawn, using Mythic and Savage Worlds, and drinking my own pee.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 14, 2012, 03:55:55 PM
At first I wanted to say, "I prefer 3E and am only sometimes an asshole."  But then it occurred to me that this could be why I don't often see eye-to-eye with some of the Paizo crowd...

Hmm...

Anyway, I can get behind the point that min/max'ers are assholes, and that 3E caters to min/max'ers very well, especially when you include metric assloads of splat.

However, in my time on the internet, I have always found the WW gamers to be far less approachable...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 14, 2012, 04:01:08 PM
Quote from: Derabar;571384
I find your points interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Honestly, I've never come so close to ramming the corner of a rulebook into someone's aesophagus and watching them turn purple than when one of my ex-group told me in sphincter-clenching detail how he planned on advancing the wizard he'd played up to 7th level all the way to 15th, including what he was going to spend every goddamn gold piece on to 'enhance his build'.

I was going to post in the Adult Swim thread, but I'll do it here instead. I grew up with D&D about 30 years ago. I had RQ. I had Traveller. I had T&T, and a copy of the first Warhammer rules in a box (which my mother appears to have burnt or given away sometime while I was at uni...), but I wasn't a gamer, I was a D&D player. Fast forward 25 years and we got to the 3rd ed party late. And within months, sane rational gamers who I'd played about every possible 1sr ed PC combo with suddenly started talking about builds. Fuck the work the GM put into his game, show me the XP and loot so I can make my character more powerful, along a path I have already predetermined.

No. Thank. You.

So now I'm not a D&D player, I'm a gamer. I still look wistfully at the 1st ed books on my shelf like I might do at the sister of the girl who told me she loved me then proceeded to fuck everyone else in the dorm corridor behind my back. I use my 3.5 player's handbook to keep my plate steady while I eat dinner in front of the TV, and the rest of the books...couldn't even tell you where they are. So even when 5th ed was announced, they could have said, free blow jobs when you buy the new books, I just don't fucking care. If it gets new people into the hobby, then I might see the benefit if they think like 1st ed players. My worry is they think like 3rd ed players, in which case I'll be hiding at home with the curtains drawn, using Mythic and Savage Worlds, and drinking my own pee.


I tried recently to interest a pathfider group in a 1E game and here were the responses:

one no comment.

"1E was broken"
   
Had a bad experience with 1E back in the day

"I would like to try it"


Not the "Sure, lets play" I had hoped for.
So one out of four. Blah.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Derabar on August 14, 2012, 04:05:00 PM
The group mentioned above are now playing Pathfinder...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 04:15:13 PM
Quote from: Bill;571389
I tried recently to interest a pathfider group in a 1E game and here were the responses:

one no comment.

"1E was broken"
   
Had a bad experience with 1E back in the day

"I would like to try it"


Not the "Sure, lets play" I had hoped for.
So one out of four. Blah.
Don't play 1E with these gamers. Introduce the game to new people you know who are curious about your hobby.

You will have a blast.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Doom on August 14, 2012, 04:18:19 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571371
You could, but then people would look at you like you went exponential retard.


Hint.  Gygax didn't have anything to do with 2e.


This is almost comical at the number of things you keep getting wrong.


I think he was deliberately being wrong this time around, but, yeah, I can see it going either way.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tommy Brownell on August 14, 2012, 04:33:23 PM
Quote from: Bill;571345
"why spend my time number crunching bullshit while I could build cool adventuring environments and care for the actual game instead?"


Well said, Benoist


I completely agree with the sentiment. I don't agree with the solution...but I agree with the sentiment.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on August 14, 2012, 04:38:44 PM
You want to play "Semantics and Lawyers"? Go ahead. We'll be busy kickin' ass and chewing Stygian Black Lotus- the best!  :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: ZWEIHÄNDER on August 14, 2012, 04:41:32 PM
There is no denying that the learning curve was considerably higher for 3E's crunchy bits. In consideration for 2E, you sacrificed ease of play for imbalance. Its mechanics beyond the core books were all over the place and lacked elegance, particularly once kits and other add-on products were released. You can blame the production manager for lack of quality control.

Striking a balance between the two has proven incredibly difficult. 4E swung far too crunchy, but 5E looks like it may fall somewhere right in the comfortable center. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kiero on August 14, 2012, 04:47:42 PM
Given the amount of whining about how 4th edition "destroyed the magic of D&D" and the like seemed to come from players of 3e who liked to play "Batman" wizards (who were prevented from solo-dominating any and all encounters and making everyone else in the party feel like useless sidekicks), I'm inclined to be sympathetic to the premise of this thread.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: daniel_ream on August 14, 2012, 06:08:54 PM
This is why I stopped playing Champions (and DC Heroes, and Mutants & Masterminds).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 14, 2012, 07:47:53 PM
3E is where I would encounter dudes playing Fighters that didn't carry any ranged weapons.

I don't recall ever seeing that when playing oldschool editions.

So it looks like 3e is the game of choice for dumb assholes as well.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 14, 2012, 07:50:13 PM
3e is the game where players ignore spell limitations, and then complain that the MU is horribly overpowered.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: estar on August 14, 2012, 07:53:13 PM
Assholes play every system and the same issues that afflicted 3e fans afflicted 1e fans back in the day.

My strategy to deal with these type of gamers, when not inviting them back isn't the clear choice, is to let them have their "fun" build but within context of my Majestic Wilderlands. I find most of these build oriented gamers have issues in being able to deal with the type of campaigns I run.

Most of the adventures I run are such that even you kill everything the issue that prompted the adventure still is unresolved. Also for the powers that be, their characters are not the first bad-ass they dealt with nor they will be the last.

For a while they rampage through the Wilderlands, but eventually their sins catch up with them and they pay the price. One particularly memorable character played elves who liked to cast fireballs indiscriminately.  He made same type of character for a GURPS campaign I ran. The players groaned as he killed indiscriminately with fireball and other fire spells. But eventually he went too far, he torched an entire village. The elves sent a squad, took him out, and then as punishment turned him into a donkey. He was led to the city gate where he is offer rides to anybody that passes by for the next 100 years.

My basic trick is that I present the little details of life as I run sessions. No one thing stands out but the combined effect is that my players look at where their characters are as a real place. This checks their behavior because they now realizes there are cops, mililtary, and others which add up a lot people that can take them out. So this acts as a break on the "rabid dog" syndrome. Sure the PCs will still main and kill but they will think it through and cover the angles in my campaigns.

Again this if the situation is such where I just don't invite the person back to my table.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 14, 2012, 07:59:28 PM
What a welcoming community of gamers.  I'd think that with the concern that this hobby MIGHT be dying, we'd be nicer to each other, even when we disagree.  

Because there's no way someone who was on the fence about trying gaming would be turned off by the kind of vitriol in this thread.  :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 14, 2012, 08:16:05 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571499
What a welcoming community of gamers.  I'd think that with the concern that this hobby MIGHT be dying, we'd be nicer to each other, even when we disagree.  

Because there's no way someone who was on the fence about trying gaming would be turned off by the kind of vitriol in this thread.  :)


You think the hobby might die because of the vitriol in this thread...

...but the reams of people who complain, moan, sigh, bitch, and whine when someone picks a fighter as their first character or go out of their way to tell them how useless the fighter is and how he won't contribute...are somehow good for it?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 08:17:34 PM
"OMG NO NO NO NOOOOO!!! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Fighters SUCK! HERE. LET ME REBUILD YOUR CHARACTER FOR YOU."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 14, 2012, 08:19:29 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571499
What a welcoming community of gamers.  I'd think that with the concern that this hobby MIGHT be dying, we'd be nicer to each other, even when we disagree.  

Because there's no way someone who was on the fence about trying gaming would be turned off by the kind of vitriol in this thread.  :)


No one who isn't a fairly dedicated gamer even knows about boards like this.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tahmoh on August 14, 2012, 08:20:22 PM
Any Dm worth his viking hat(for you can tell the good dm's from bad by checking the length of horns and such on there hat) should know the easiest way to stop players from twinking characters via 'builds' is to tell them not every feat they want is available in the town/city they call home this will either make them throw a tantrum and quit whilst sulking about you being unfair, or will spur them into wanting to find trainers for these skills which should in theory allow you to develop a campaign where they play nice whilst slowly getting their toys at your pace...and hey if they dont get those precious feats of choice at the levels they wanted it's not exactly your fault, afterall the trainers are hard to find and may not even want to train them without some sort of reward(and some may even be dead).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Xavier Onassiss on August 14, 2012, 08:20:57 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571490
3e is the game where players ignore spell limitations, and then complain that the MU is horribly overpowered.


Oh darn those naughty 3E players. Darn them all to heck.

This also happened in 2E. And 1E. And every single fucking edition of D&D I ever played, with the exception of 4th edition, for obvious reasons.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 14, 2012, 08:30:05 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571499
What a welcoming community of gamers.  I'd think that with the concern that this hobby MIGHT be dying, we'd be nicer to each other, even when we disagree.  

Because there's no way someone who was on the fence about trying gaming would be turned off by the kind of vitriol in this thread.  :)

...I don't imagine very there is significant number of people that are "on the fence" about gaming reading this messageboard there Einstein.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 14, 2012, 08:33:30 PM
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;571509
Oh darn those naughty 3E players. Darn them all to heck.

This also happened in 2E. And 1E. And every single fucking edition of D&D I ever played, with the exception of 4th edition, for obvious reasons.

To be fair it's not so much as a genuine ad hominem as a quip regarding certain other current assertions on this board.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 14, 2012, 09:02:14 PM
What a bunch of butthurt.

And I see we're even drawing in butthurt haters from TBP.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 09:02:22 PM
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;571509
This also happened in 2E. And 1E. And every single fucking edition of D&D I ever played, with the exception of 4th edition, for obvious reasons.

These "obvious reasons" aren't so obvious to me. Care to state them?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Doom on August 14, 2012, 09:04:25 PM
I'll reckon it's because 4e "wizards" don't have "spells" in the same sense as other editions.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 14, 2012, 09:11:49 PM
Quote from: estar;571496
Assholes play every system and the same issues that afflicted 3e fans afflicted 1e fans back in the day.



The difference being that back in the TSR days the game was on the side of sanity and let everyone know in no uncertain terms that those were bad players who suck the fun and joy from everything.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 14, 2012, 09:13:56 PM
Quote from: Piestrio;571526
The difference being that back in the TSR days the game was on the side of sanity and let everyone know in no uncertain terms that those were bad players who suck the fun and joy from everything.


Right, and 3e created a whole generation of misguided players.

I'm pretty sure a poll of ages taken in the Wizard vs. Fighter thread will prove enlightening.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 09:18:08 PM
Quote from: Doom;571522
I'll reckon it's because 4e "wizards" don't have "spells" in the same sense as other editions.

Duh! I brainfarted. Thanks for pointing that out, Doom.

I thought for some reason he was saying that there were asshole players in all editions, but 4e, which made me go "huh". For the record, I think that is totally true, that there are assholes playing any and all editions of the game.

My personal experience in moving on from 3rd ed is twofold, however: (1) from a game play standpoint, I was just tolerating the math and multiple modifiers and recalculating all the skills you put ranks in and all the nitpicky "do your taxes" aspects of the game, and one day woke up wondering "why the fuck do I care about all this shit?" as I stated before. This part has to do with the game's design and I had no assholes at my game table to speak of, BUT the wake up call came in part from my discussions online, which leads me to (2).

(2) the discussions online surrounding 3rd edition became gradually all about the rules, and nothing but the rules. Anything and everything was scrutinized from a mechanical standpoint, and the circle-jerking, though initially confined IME on boards like ENWorld spread all over the gaming internet, down even to Okay Your Turn where I was hanging out for the most part in those years. You literally couldn't have a discussion about anything 3rd ed related without having it devolving into a discussion about rules and game balance and twinks and bullshit.

That obviously carried over in the design of 4e, but for some people still holding on to 3rd ed and Pathfinder, like the denners in some strange "everything sucks and needs to be fixed" way, or others who keep whining about stuff like the fighter versus wizard and how the game is broken blah blah blah, that outlook on "the game are the rules and the rules the game" is still very much alive, apparently, and I don't think it can just be blamed on a "misunderstanding" of the 3.0 rules. I think the game's design involved elements which these OCD rules lawyers CharOp types just held on to immediately, which led to the understanding that CRs are RULES, not guidelines, that if it's spelled out in the book you can do it, if it doesn't say it you can't, etc etc.

All the bullshit displayed on the Wizard v. Fighter thread, basically.

So if 3rd ed is far from being the only edition with its assholes (one could talk about the 1e DMs who thought Tomb of Horrors was the basic game mode and that you should screw the players at every turn, the thespian types playing 2e railroading the hell out of you, and the 4vengers, obviously), 3rd ed sort of breeds and encourages its own special breed of assholes, so to speak.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 14, 2012, 09:19:08 PM
Quote from: Rum Cove;571528
Right, and 3e created a whole generation of misguided players.

I'm pretty sure a poll of ages taken in the Wizard vs. Fighter thread will prove enlightening.

Bah, you know everyone would be 45 and have played at Gary's table.  Just like every person who has ever played World of Warcraft and posts on their forum has played since beta.  Ask 'em! :p
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: JamesV on August 14, 2012, 09:26:22 PM
Eh. Played plenty of 3e, and things went just fine. While there was some player talk and thoughts about feats, most people were far more concerned about how they were going to play the character in general.

I suggest the 3e non-fans organize a support group so they can have a good cry and group hug.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 14, 2012, 09:27:51 PM
Quote from: Benoist;571531
(1) from a game play standpoint, I was just tolerating the math and multiple modifiers and recalculating all the skills you put ranks in and all the nitpicky "do your taxes" aspects of the game, and one day woke up wondering "why the fuck do I care about all this shit?" as I stated before.

You know, I actually quite like math, I think it's fun and cool and I'm a science student BUT from my experience with teaching people how to play 3E AND watching many folks flounder with all the math in the game (I'm not trying to be a dick here, and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about this, but I'm of the opinion that most everyday folks have atrocious math skills) I've come to the conclusion it's too math heavy for a "game," and the math really really really slows down play.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 09:34:11 PM
Quote from: Planet Algol;571538
You know, I actually quite like math, I think it's fun and cool and I'm a science student BUT from my experience with teaching people how to play 3E AND watching many folks flounder with all the math in the game (I'm not trying to be a dick here, and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about this, but I'm of the opinion that most everyday folks have atrocious math skills) I've come to the conclusion it's too math heavy for a "game," and the math really really really slows down play.

I completely agree. I've introduced folks to role playing games using 3rd ed. At the time I was myopic about it, but with hindsight it's VERY clear to me that the ONE major thing I would change retroactively is that I would use a game much lighter on math, with more ready character choices that you pick and boom you game.

Something like AD&D (or OD&D, or B/X, etc) actually works great. You just roll your stats, pick a class, a race, select your equipment (the most time consuming task in actual play - have some 'equipment bundles' ready for purchase in advance, DMs!), roll for starting spells and select those you got memorized, and on you go adventuring. No bullshit choosing feats and themes and selecting skills and all that crap that just clutters the game and makes character gen slow down to a crawl as you explain the options and pass on the rules book to see the list and what-the-fuck-else.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: JamesV on August 14, 2012, 09:35:26 PM
Quote from: Planet Algol;571538
You know, I actually quite like math, I think it's fun and cool and I'm a science student BUT from my experience with teaching people how to play 3E AND watching many folks flounder with all the math in the game (I'm not trying to be a dick here, and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong about this, but I'm of the opinion that most everyday folks have atrocious math skills) I've come to the conclusion it's too math heavy for a "game," and the math really really really slows down play.

Now that I can sympathize with. It can be pretty easy for newbies to miss a modifier in 3e because there can be two or three in each roll.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 09:36:35 PM
WAY too many numbers on the character sheet in 3rd ed.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 14, 2012, 09:41:43 PM
In regards to the "assholes" issues, I think how to there was a synergy with the era that 3E was released being roughly when the internet became a household appliance AND console/computer RPGs/games were a household appliance as well.

You have a situation where people make up "walkthroughs" and "strategy guides" for video rpgs and share them on the internet, so than people make up [figurative] "walkthroughs" and "strategy guides" for Dungeons&Dragons and share them on the internet with a generation of new D&D players that learned about fantasy adventure games from video games with savegames and difficulty settings and MMO that don't have permadeath or even PVP .... or that do have PVP...

For example, when a big deal fantasy adventure videogame is released I could buy a book that's the "module", "monster manual," and "tome of treasures" for that videogame at the store where I buy the videogame.

The first time I saw that I was flabbergasted, why would someone want to ruin the game for themselves like that? Ideally I want to know as little as possible about what's in a fantasy adventure game before I play it. Plus, "it's cheating."

You combine those volatile elements: 3E, the emergence of the Internet, the emergence of fantasy adventure videogames being an everyday thing AND the associated videogame "strategy guide culture" and what emerges, among a segment of the people playing 3E (and probably other rpgs of the era), is an attitude of entitlement to "win the game" and "have the best possible character"

Which is a mentality contrary to quality pulp fantasy adventure gaming. Which is what D&D is.

(yes I'm aware there were strategy guides in the 80s, but I don't believe they were as prevelant AND there wasn't "The Internet" to provide a "feedback loop")
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 14, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;571507
Any Dm worth his viking hat(for you can tell the good dm's from bad by checking the length of horns and such on there hat) should know the easiest way to stop players from twinking characters via 'builds' is to tell them not every feat they want is available in the town/city they call home this will either make them throw a tantrum and quit whilst sulking about you being unfair, or will spur them into wanting to find trainers for these skills which should in theory allow you to develop a campaign where they play nice whilst slowly getting their toys at your pace...and hey if they dont get those precious feats of choice at the levels they wanted it's not exactly your fault, afterall the trainers are hard to find and may not even want to train them without some sort of reward(and some may even be dead).


I'm not sure this is RAW.  And if it isn't, why would this level of fiat be any more/less effective than the good old, "don't be a dick, this isn't a character building contest"?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 14, 2012, 09:44:29 PM
3E should have had PCs acquire their feats and skills at 2nd level...

:D or serious?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 14, 2012, 09:44:56 PM
Quote from: Benoist;571541
I completely agree. I've introduced folks to role playing games using 3rd ed. At the time I was myopic about it, but with hindsight it's VERY clear to me that the ONE major thing I would change retroactively is that I would use a game much lighter on math, with more ready character choices that you pick and boom you game.

Something like AD&D (or OD&D, or B/X, etc) actually works great. You just roll your stats, pick a class, a race, select your equipment (the most time consuming task in actual play - have some 'equipment bundles' ready for purchase in advance, DMs!), roll for starting spells and select those you got memorized, and on you go adventuring. No bullshit choosing feats and themes and selecting skills and all that crap that just clutters the game and makes character gen slow down to a crawl as you explain the options and pass on the rules book to see the list and what-the-fuck-else.


So you don't do NWPs in your AD&D?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 14, 2012, 09:46:11 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;571550
So you don't do NWPs in your AD&D?


Class-based and Skill-based are incompatible.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 14, 2012, 09:50:43 PM
Quote from: Rum Cove;571552
Class-based and Skill-based are incompatible.


Okay, so I haven't seen AD&D since high school, but is this actually in the rules?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 09:51:24 PM
Yeah. The explosion of the internet is probably part of it. It quickly devolved into theoretical circle-jerks.

You know, around 2000, there was a website called Dlabbradath that had tons of information on the Realms and everything... the website was myth-drannor.net. It had a forum. And that forum was AWESOME. The discussions were really cool and there was an entire parallel board for online gaming... man, those were the days. 3rd ed was fresh then, and the discussion weren't endlessly geared to talk about PrCs and "this v. that" and "is that balanced?" and "I got a new feat" and all that bullshit.

It became worse later. ENWord was great in those days too. A little later. 2004 or so. Then it gradually became shit too. Ah well.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 14, 2012, 09:51:53 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;571550
So you don't do NWPs in your AD&D?


That shit is right out of my games.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: JamesV on August 14, 2012, 09:52:48 PM
Quote from: Benoist;571541
I completely agree. I've introduced folks to role playing games using 3rd ed. At the time I was myopic about it, but with hindsight it's VERY clear to me that the ONE major thing I would change retroactively is that I would use a game much lighter on math, with more ready character choices that you pick and boom you game.

A confession. I'll play 3e, but I run BFRPG mainly because of the above.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 14, 2012, 09:57:22 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;571553
Okay, so I haven't seen AD&D since high school, but is this actually in the rules?

Not at all.  The concepts do clash though, which is why D&D has had a hard time with skills.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tahmoh on August 14, 2012, 10:20:39 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;571548
I'm not sure this is RAW.  And if it isn't, why would this level of fiat be any more/less effective than the good old, "don't be a dick, this isn't a character building contest"?


Oh i was more thinking about a way to deal with those players for whome your comment falls on deaf ears(since they were probably far too busy looking up feat chains in their splats at the time to listen to you), obviously we cant kill them all and take their stuff(even if it would make things alot easier) as that would both lose you a couple of players(not all of them due to death) and make a mess at the table :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 14, 2012, 10:32:44 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;571550
So you don't do NWPs in your AD&D?

...if... I was to use "skills" for a D&D-ish game I'd most likely use the skill rules from the original Empire of the Petal Throne (most oldschool D&D system).

But otherwise, as much of a dick DM as I am, we all just assume the PCs know how to ride horses, swim and build campfires, and use a PCs' ability scores, level, background *, the mechanics of the game itself, and experiences in actual play to adjudicate skill situations.

They're generally not needed. Specialist hirelings exist for a reason, hire an engineer to calculate the load weight of your castle walls. Thieves and Reality-Bending Supergeniuses and NPC Scholars all have the capacity to read languages. The reaction roll mechanics and what the players says their character actually does combined with what the DM knows of the particular situation "behind the curtain" can be used to adjudicate "Gather Information" and "Diplomacy".

If a DM is going to be a dick about such a rules light "skill system", well they'll be a dick about non-weapon proficiencies, or they'll be a dick when DMing 3E/4E/5E AND you get to avoid weird skill rules outlier artifacts like ladder climbing comedy and drowning in swimming pools AND players can generate characters even faster not even having to think about skills/NWPs.

* If it's a consideration, don't even think about optimizing/powergaming/munchkinism at my table.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Philotomy Jurament on August 14, 2012, 10:37:37 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;571550
So you don't do NWPs in your AD&D?
Hell, no.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 14, 2012, 10:42:05 PM
Gawd, it was so ham-handed how NWPs were bolted to the weapon proficiency system ...down to using the same level progression as I remember.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 14, 2012, 10:46:40 PM
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;571572
Hell, no.



Yeah, I don't really either.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 14, 2012, 11:21:37 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;571385
At first I wanted to say, "I prefer 3E and am only sometimes an asshole."  But then it occurred to me that this could be why I don't often see eye-to-eye with some of the Paizo crowd...

Hmm...

Anyway, I can get behind the point that min/max'ers are assholes, and that 3E caters to min/max'ers very well, especially when you include metric assloads of splat.

However, in my time on the internet, I have always found the WW gamers to be far less approachable...


My primary games are White Wolf, especially Mage and I think I'm quite approachable.  As for Dnd I prefer 3x (Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder) then 2e and have never been thought of as an asshole when I'm serious but yes 3x does attract a particular subset of player just like any specific edition.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 15, 2012, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: Doom;571411
I think he was deliberately being wrong this time around, but, yeah, I can see it going either way.
Yes I was being deliberately wrong because you can say anything even remotely applicable to any edition of D&D and make the blanket statement that all people who do it are like that. However, that's stupid. It's a stupid idea. This thread is stupid. The idea that one way of playing imagination land is inherently better than someone else's is stupid. It's also a special kind of arrogant.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 15, 2012, 12:28:45 AM
Quote from: MGuy;571584
The idea that one way of playing imagination land is inherently better than someone else's is stupid. It's also a special kind of arrogant.

You mean like saying others who don't do it your way are playing "Magical Tea Party" and are just "waiting for the GM to pet them on the head", that kind of thing? I agree it's pretty douchey.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Wolf, Richard on August 15, 2012, 12:31:14 AM
Quote from: Bill;571363
My girlfriends all leave me because "I am too nice" or "It's me, not you"

I can't pin it on 3E :)


I hate to break it to you, but...

Quote from: Declan MacManus
3rd edition...the people for whom it is the game of choice are assholes.


...chicks dig assholes.

Quote from: daniel_ream
This is why I stopped playing Champions (and DC Heroes, and Mutants & Masterminds).


Point-buy was popular when 3e came out, and I feel like it was intentional that 3e be similar to a point-buy system while retaining its' 2e-isms.

Quote from: Rum Cove
Class-based and Skill-based are incompatible.


By the same logic Class-based and Ability Score-based are also incompatible.  If the two key components of what constitutes the character's abilities are race and class, with heavy emphasis on the latter then ability scores are also contradictory.  

It would make a lot more sense to say that "Fighters are strong" and "Wizards are smart" than it is to rely on the player to roll or assign appropriately strong and smart fighters and wizards respectively.

Class and skill only conflict due to de-linking class from the system's metric of competency.  Except ability scores also do this.  

They really add nothing to the game and would make generating characters all that much faster.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Xavier Onassiss on August 15, 2012, 12:36:07 AM
Quote from: Benoist;571521
These "obvious reasons" aren't so obvious to me. Care to state them?


I'll attempt to clarify. [lame excuse tag] It's late and I'm packing for GenCon so I'll be brief. [/lame excuse]

4E changed the game: there weren't any more V/S/M casting requirements for wizards. So the "problem" with players/GMs ignoring them and "unbalancing" the wizard class WRT fighters became a non-issue. My understanding is that this was a design decision taken because those V/S/M casting requirements had been consistently unpopular in previous editions of D&D.

My own experiences tend to confirm this: throughout my days of playing 1E/2E/3E (and 3.5) I seldom saw anyone use casting requirements; most gamers I played with considered them to be "no fun." A few GMs I ran across enforced them in such a way as to make the wizard class nearly unplayable, which just turned everyone off them that much harder. When I ran 2E, I did it "by the book" and used the casting requirements without making them completely unplayable. After a good deal of bitching and moaning, my players found out the "rules as written" worked just fine... much to everyone's surprise. My personal opinion is that a lot of things in 2E that were unpopular were actually just hard to implement properly.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 15, 2012, 12:40:50 AM
Quote from: Benoist;571586
You mean like saying others who don't do it your way are playing "Magical Tea Party" and are just "waiting for the GM to pet them on the head", that kind of thing? I agree it's pretty douchey.

Consider this. I never said playing Magical Tea Party is an inherently bad thing just that it doesn't make THE ACTUAL RULES OF THE GAME any better. In fact I went as far as to say you can't make rules for everything but when you are talking about whether or not rules are balanced or functional that stating your capacity for playing Magic Tea Party does not forgive the rules in question.

I note that you probably have some lame onetruewayismm response to this but this response is so that other people don't get confused about my actual position on the subject.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 15, 2012, 12:40:54 AM
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;571592
I'll attempt to clarify. [lame excuse tag] It's late and I'm packing for GenCon so I'll be brief. [/lame excuse]

4E changed the game: there weren't any more V/S/M casting requirements for wizards. So the "problem" with players/GMs ignoring them and "unbalancing" the wizard class WRT fighters became a non-issue. My understanding is that this was a design decision taken because those V/S/M casting requirements had been consistently unpopular in previous editions of D&D.

My own experiences tend to confirm this: throughout my days of playing 1E/2E/3E (and 3.5) I seldom saw anyone use casting requirements; most gamers I played with considered them to be "no fun." A few GMs I ran across enforced them in such a way as to make the wizard class nearly unplayable, which just turned everyone off them that much harder. When I ran 2E, I did it "by the book" and used the casting requirements without making them completely unplayable. After a good deal of bitching and moaning, my players found out the "rules as written" worked just fine... much to everyone's surprise. My personal opinion is that a lot of things in 2E that were unpopular were actually just hard to implement properly.
I think some of it had to do with us being teenagers and just dumping stuff from the game that should have been more carefully considered. I think V/S/M components are not that hard to implement in a game without making it unplayable from the get go. It does require some amount of thinking before hand on the part of the DM. From my own experience, it's the kind of stuff that was more or less found out as the game was played by checking out this or that spell at the table because neither the DMG nor the PH had entirely been read by the DM or players (while assuming they just knew the game), and then acting with surprise going "WTF is this shit?!" and just dumping it in the first few minutes of consideration. Likewise elements like demi-human level limits, Wp v. AC table, weapon speeds, etc.

I don't think it says as much about the game as it says about us being kids.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 15, 2012, 12:46:32 AM
Quote from: MGuy;571594
Consider this.
Fuck you, weasel. Crawl back to your hole and let those who can actually post without deforming the shit out of what each other is saying talk, will you? You will not fuck around and try to slither your way out of your persistent assholery on this board. You have been consistently playing us like we are a bunch of fucking morons, and you're trying it again now. I don't care to play your little game right now. Go fap on some white room scenario somewhere.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 15, 2012, 01:05:17 AM
He is an expert on a special kind of arrogance as opposed to his "expertise" at 3E spells...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Peregrin on August 15, 2012, 01:15:31 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;571526
The difference being that back in the TSR days the game was on the side of sanity and let everyone know in no uncertain terms that those were bad players who suck the fun and joy from everything.

But do you really need a game to tell you there are people you're better off not gaming with because they just don't get what the game's about or because of a mismatch in play goals?

I'm not saying this to pick at you or AD&D, either, because some games I like contain lots of "Well fucking duh" advice, but it's still pretty odd when it comes up.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 15, 2012, 01:19:58 AM
Quote from: Benoist;571597
Fuck you, weasel. Crawl back to your hole and let those who can actually post without deforming the shit out of what each other is saying talk, will you? You will not fuck around and try to slither your way out of your persistent assholery on this board. You have been consistently playing us like we are a bunch of fucking morons, and you're trying it again now. I don't care to play your little game right now. Go fap on some white room scenario somewhere.


It's not weasling out. Go back and read my actual posts. If not in the Fighter v Wizard thread then do so in the one asking about whether GM fiat is important for the game. You can go ahead and not believe me all you want but my posts are all still around if you want to meticulously fact check. And no I haven't played all of you like you were a bunch of morons just the morons, like you, who openly state that they don't want to talk about the rules and only care about actual play. People like you, stormbringer, and jeff when he openly stated that his way of gaming is inherently better than other people's are arrogant pricks who think that they have stumbled upon the super secret best way to play D&D and anyone who plays a different way are just problem players you shouldn't game with.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 15, 2012, 01:27:18 AM
That's right...

WIMPS AND POSERS LEAVE THE HALL!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 15, 2012, 01:46:35 AM
Quote from: Derabar;571384
I find your points interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Honestly, I've never come so close to ramming the corner of a rulebook into someone's aesophagus and watching them turn purple than when one of my ex-group told me in sphincter-clenching detail how he planned on advancing the wizard he'd played up to 7th level all the way to 15th, including what he was going to spend every goddamn gold piece on to 'enhance his build'.

I was going to post in the Adult Swim thread, but I'll do it here instead. I grew up with D&D about 30 years ago. I had RQ. I had Traveller. I had T&T, and a copy of the first Warhammer rules in a box (which my mother appears to have burnt or given away sometime while I was at uni...), but I wasn't a gamer, I was a D&D player. Fast forward 25 years and we got to the 3rd ed party late. And within months, sane rational gamers who I'd played about every possible 1sr ed PC combo with suddenly started talking about builds. Fuck the work the GM put into his game, show me the XP and loot so I can make my character more powerful, along a path I have already predetermined.

No. Thank. You.

So now I'm not a D&D player, I'm a gamer. I still look wistfully at the 1st ed books on my shelf like I might do at the sister of the girl who told me she loved me then proceeded to fuck everyone else in the dorm corridor behind my back. I use my 3.5 player's handbook to keep my plate steady while I eat dinner in front of the TV, and the rest of the books...couldn't even tell you where they are. So even when 5th ed was announced, they could have said, free blow jobs when you buy the new books, I just don't fucking care. If it gets new people into the hobby, then I might see the benefit if they think like 1st ed players. My worry is they think like 3rd ed players, in which case I'll be hiding at home with the curtains drawn, using Mythic and Savage Worlds, and drinking my own pee.
You sound like you might be what we like to call a 'Vintage Gamer'.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 15, 2012, 01:49:35 AM
Quote from: planet algol;571606
that's right...

wimps and posers leave the hall!

Got to make it louder! All men play on ten!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 15, 2012, 02:01:48 AM
Quote from: Planet Algol;571574
Gawd, it was so ham-handed how NWPs were bolted to the weapon proficiency system ...down to using the same level progression as I remember.
2e was such a tangled mess of brilliant ideas but shitty implementation, it makes you choke up a little for the wasted potential.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 15, 2012, 02:08:07 AM
Quote from: Benoist;571609
Got to make it louder! All men play on ten!

Yesss...
PLAY ON TEN(10)!
(http://www.manowar.com/images2008/left4.jpg)
(http://www.reeelapse.com/images/smilies/awesome.gif)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 15, 2012, 02:14:15 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;571611
2e was such a tangled mess of brilliant ideas but shitty implementation, it makes you choke up a little for the wasted potential.

What would salvage for use as house rules for a 1eA/otherD&D game?

I can see cleric domains, but that would likely bloat the cleric spell list?

I actually don't like buffet thief skill points, I consider them another chargen speed bump

I remember the bard trying to be something useful?

The prices for things too prosaic for 1st ed AD&D were useful.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 15, 2012, 02:21:32 AM
Quote from: Planet Algol;571612
Yesss...
PLAY ON TEN(10)!
(http://www.manowar.com/images2008/left4.jpg)
(http://www.reeelapse.com/images/smilies/awesome.gif)


10.  Psh.  So pedestrian.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lr1erlgw3X1qgkczz.jpg)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 15, 2012, 02:25:09 AM
Quote from: Planet Algol;571614
What would salvage for use as house rules for a 1eA/otherD&D game?
That's the problem.  Most of the stuff worth salvaging would need a pretty thorough overhaul before you could use it.

Quote
I can see cleric domains, but that would likely bloat the cleric spell list?

I actually don't like buffet thief skill points, I consider them another chargen speed bump

I remember the bard trying to be something useful?

The prices for things too prosaic for 1st ed AD&D were useful.
Cleric domains: good.  Skill points for the Thief are good, but like you said, it tends to slow down char gen because the newbies don't know what all that stuff does.  Maybe have them kick in at 3rd level?

I don't personally care for Bards, but I know there is some appeal.  That would need some work to get a good mix of Fighter and Thief in there.  Maybe different mixes based on their collage?

The Core Rules CD had all that ultra-mundane stuff in the equipment list; it was completely fucking awesome.  :)  The stuff like the Arms and Equipment book and Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog were just fun reading.

Kits were badass, but even less quality control on those than Prestige Classes.

It was just frustrating, there was much in there that could have been so, so right and it just landed with a thud because the execution was so, so wrong.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 15, 2012, 02:30:43 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;571616
Skill points for the Thief are good, but like you said, it tends to slow down char gen because the newbies don't know what all that stuff does.

Imagine all the thieves that would have 99% move silently & hide in shadows and dismal everything else so they would be able to maximize their backstabbings...

"Traps keep killing party members, this game is broken!"

Quote
The Core Rules CD had all that ultra-mundane stuff in the equipment list; it was completely fucking awesome.   The stuff like the Arms and Equipment book and Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog were just fun reading.

Chargen speed bump... :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 15, 2012, 02:54:37 AM
Quote from: Planet Algol;571612
Yesss...
PLAY ON TEN(10)!
(http://www.manowar.com/images2008/left4.jpg)
(http://www.reeelapse.com/images/smilies/awesome.gif)

Damn right!

There's metal in the air tonight, can you hear its call?
If you ain't got the balls to take it, you can leave the hall!


(http://katehizis.com/publications/articles/images/manowar_triumph.jpg)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Teazia on August 15, 2012, 03:17:27 AM
Wow, Ben trolling The Pundit's own forum, fascinating.  Will he get banned for this K&KA thread?

Wow
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 15, 2012, 03:22:40 AM
You know these are the actual lyrics of the song, right?

Lighten up, Francis. :rolleyes:
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 15, 2012, 05:04:00 AM
Ben, when you are done whining like a bitch, go reread that section of the AD&D DMG where it talks about asshole players and remember that there are assholes who can still be assholes no matter what game system they use - hence why those gamers are described as assholes.

Fuck me, but you are being a retard. :rolleyes:
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Anon Adderlan on August 15, 2012, 06:09:42 AM
Wow, irony much? Because this is exactly the kind of shit that drove me to 'story' and 'indie' games.

It's weird. I get the idea that many of us here dislike the same elements we find in modern gaming, and yet...  

Quote from: JamesV;571542
Now that I can sympathize with. It can be pretty easy for newbies to miss a modifier in 3e because there can be two or three in each roll.


Newbies? It can be pretty easy for experienced players to miss a modifier, which is why some of them use a spreadsheet for the common combinations.

A fucking spreadsheet.

And if a modifier always applies to a specific action, then the player shouldn't even have the option of forgetting to apply it.

So requires spreadsheet + manual error checking = shit game (unless you're REALLY into those things).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Derabar on August 15, 2012, 06:20:38 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;571608
You sound like you might be what we like to call a 'Vintage Gamer'.

Hmmm, not sure if good thing or not...

I have to say, since I left the old 3.5 Pathfinder group I've fallen in with a new bunch. Mixed age ranges, a few ladies, and in about 18 months of playing twice a week, with games changed every couple of months to let other people take a turn at GMing, I saw one guy flicking through the 3.5 PHB once, and I have never even heard the word 'Pathfinder' mentioned, let alone seen any evidence of anyone owning it. I'l played or run the following in that time:

- Savage Worlds (running a fantasy campaign and have dabbled with a couple of other genres)
- WFRP 1st Ed (OK, reminds me of 1st Ed D&D in many ways, although I prefer the latter)
- CoC (which pretty much has its own niche. One of the few games you can't munchkin your way through, although I saw someone try it once...)
- various random S&S rules (BoL, Shadow, Sword and Spell)
- Chronica Feudalis (a great little system, although I can see why its appeal might be a bit limited)
- a couple of oWoD games (a complete blank in my gaming history up to that point, and nothing I'd be that fussed about going back to)
- various one shot (ICONS, Agon, The Committee, Eclipse Phase)
- and next up in the rotation is going to be Dresden Files which will give me my first taste of FATE

Is that typical of your 'Vintage Gamer'?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Omnifray on August 15, 2012, 07:46:52 AM
Quote from: Benoist;571334
...
I think it's undeniable at this point that there are certain types of players, which we would have called rules lawyers, munchkins, power gamers, selfish bastards in years past, that are specifically cattered to by this OCD game design. That makes no fucking doubt in my mind. And the OCD types of course eat it with a spoon.
...


I'm not saying you're right, but assuming you were, there could be a certain market logic to it.

I mean, most gamers could buy, say, a Player's Guide, a DMG and a Monster Manual, and be happy playing games based on those for the rest of eternity. Maybe buy a few modules or something. I'm not saying they won't buy more but they don't feel compelled to.

The paragon of munchkins, on the other hand, isn't happy until he can twink himself out with the entire catalogue...

Say he buys five times as many books as the average gamer, you only need munchkins to constitute one sixth of the gaming population and you are selling as many books to them as you are to everyone else combined...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 15, 2012, 08:23:13 AM
Quote from: Omnifray;571648
I'm not saying you're right, but assuming you were, there could be a certain market logic to it.

I mean, most gamers could buy, say, a Player's Guide, a DMG and a Monster Manual, and be happy playing games based on those for the rest of eternity. Maybe buy a few modules or something. I'm not saying they won't buy more but they don't feel compelled to.

The paragon of munchkins, on the other hand, isn't happy until he can twink himself out with the entire catalogue...

Say he buys five times as many books as the average gamer, you only need munchkins to constitute one sixth of the gaming population and you are selling as many books to them as you are to everyone else combined...


That is indeed the heart of the problem. The greed driven need to increasingly grow the industry has, in the long term, hurt the hobby. It was in the best interest of game companies (their bottom line at least) to sell more product to players.

 Doing this successfully meant setting up the RAW culture like some kind of cult. Only through rules carefully designed by professionals can you find true fun. Your friends who wish to DM are out to get you. Your faith in the almighty RAW is your only shield against this injustice! Your DM does nothing but spend every waking hour figuring out how to destroy your lovingly crafted masterpiece of a character. To stay a step ahead of these foul DMs you must arm yourselves with splatbooks of justice. The difference between life and death are the combos you choose so choose wisely!

The goal was to tap into the CCG mindset and apply it to the rpg market. Competitive games provide the psychological urge to buy more product if it will help bring victory. Its worked for GW for a long time. Roleplaying games are largely cooperative so the trick is to get players on the same team to compete with each other. BE THE BESTEST! Outshine your companions, and be the true MVP of the game. These splatbooks should help.

The result is that we now how a large cadre of gamers who care more about masturbating over their mechanical prowess than actually sharing adventures with their friends. Eventually the number of DMs who want to play nuclear escalation with these self-obsessed turds dwindles to a point that can't sustain the game. To actually use these monstrosities at the table, the theorywankers need DMs, and most of the GOOD DMs are fed up with this shit. This feeds into lots of actual play with munchkins vs shitty adversarial DMs which only serves to validate the munchkin point of view.

Meanwhile the rest of us have moved on to older editions, OSR clones, or other systems altogether. The culture spawned by 3E is a mess.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Ladybird on August 15, 2012, 08:46:12 AM
Quote from: Benoist;571531
(2) the discussions online surrounding 3rd edition became gradually all about the rules, and nothing but the rules. Anything and everything was scrutinized from a mechanical standpoint, and the circle-jerking, though initially confined IME on boards like ENWorld spread all over the gaming internet, down even to Okay Your Turn where I was hanging out for the most part in those years. You literally couldn't have a discussion about anything 3rd ed related without having it devolving into a discussion about rules and game balance and twinks and bullshit.

IMO, 3e doesn't give you anywhere near enough resources to make a character both effective and characterful (Effective characters can be characterful, natch, but that's something the player has to bring to the table). It then assumes that your characters are effective and balances itself around that.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;571638
Newbies? It can be pretty easy for experienced players to miss a modifier, which is why some of them use a spreadsheet for the common combinations.

A fucking spreadsheet.

See, there's a funny thing. I use plenty of spreadsheets in my day job (Finance grunt). And if I get something wrong on my spreadsheet dealing with tens of thousands of pounds, like we send something to the wrong place? It's not actually a big deal. We see what's gone wrong, work out what should happen, fix it, accept that mistakes happen and make a note of it for next time. Problem solved. Everyone makes mistakes.

Make the same sort of mistake at a game table, and it's suddenly a huge issue and you are cheating and THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED.

If a game promotes that sort of intolerant-of-errors culture, in a casual, non-tournament setting, there is something wrong with that game. It's beyond a "some players are just jerks" issue.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: JamesV on August 15, 2012, 09:05:49 AM
Quote from: chaosvoyager;571638
It can be pretty easy for experienced players to miss a modifier, which is why some of them use a spreadsheet for the common combinations.

A fucking spreadsheet.

And if a modifier always applies to a specific action, then the player shouldn't even have the option of forgetting to apply it.

So requires spreadsheet + manual error checking = shit game (unless you're REALLY into those things).

Good Lord. You go from some players using a spreadsheet to requires a spreadsheet? Hyperbole much?

I'm not really into math, but D&D combat isn't differential equations, and the modifiers used in rolls were pretty common from roll to roll. While missing a mod happens, there were plenty of common mods, and again, in my experience there were three mods at the most, sometimes one or two, and usually none. If I had to keep track of a steady mod, like from a feat, or a spell, I'd write it in the margin of my sheet, and I just needed one.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Wolf, Richard on August 15, 2012, 10:10:45 AM
I've never used a spreadsheet in 3.x/PF and I really don't see where these math problems are coming from.  The only thing that immediately pops into mind is the Dodge Feat which gives you a +1 AC to one opponent at a time, which people frequently forget about using, and probably only bought the Feat as a prerequisite in the first place.

I'm sure players "forget" to apply their attack penalty when using the Power Attack Feat, but that's an entirely different problem and the same players that I suspect do this, where "forgetting" to track their HP properly and such when we were playing 2e.

I'm sure there are other examples from PrC abilities, and ability modifiers changing from buff spells that players weren't prepared for, but those have been rare at the table for me.

I agree that 3e has problems with the whole 'building characters' thing, where basically players were encouraged to plan out their entire progression from the very beginning, although Pathfinder fixes these issues to some degree, and that 3e record keeping was generally a pain in the ass.

The bonuses changing from round to round isn't a problem that 3.x has though.  I really don't know where that complaint is coming from.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 15, 2012, 10:15:48 AM
The thing I hate most about 3rd edition is that it's not even played at the table with friends. You play 3rd edition in your dingey, pit stank basement with your sourcebooks and spreadsheets and OCD medication.

Every meaningful decision about your character in that game is made during chargen or during level ups, not during actual play. What happens during table play is then determined by what you have previously written on your character sheet between sessions.

Roleplaying games are supposed to be about making decisions at the table that are informed by the details of the situation and the game world as presented by the GM...not coming to the table preloaded with a handful of options that automate the responses of your character. That is not how you play a roleplaying game..THAT is how you play a card game.

D&D is supposed to be played around the table with friends, not alone in some dark room, wanking over your "build".

Does your character sheet have a field that says "name"? Fuck you then. That's all the character customization you need you entitled cuntfart. If you enjoy WotC/Paizo D&D more than TSR D&D then you are playing the game for all the wrong reasons and you need to fuck off to yugioh with the rest of the little 'spergers.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Omnifray on August 15, 2012, 10:53:03 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;571656
... BE THE BESTEST! Outshine your companions, and be the true MVP of the game. These splatbooks should help.


Funnily enough, I spend half my game-design energy on trying to stop this sort of thing from working.

But it doesn't stop me occasionally being accused of being an...

Quote from: Exploderwizard;571656
... adversarial DM...


I try hard, when reffing, to make sure everyone gets a level playing field at the table for glory hunting.

Trouble is I often play in groups where my players can be evenly divided into tactical geniuses, tactical mediocrities and tactical donkeys. In my own view, the better players should get stat handicaps to help the weaker ones shine...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 15, 2012, 11:03:54 AM
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;571507
Any Dm worth his viking hat(for you can tell the good dm's from bad by checking the length of horns and such on there hat) should know the easiest way to stop players from twinking characters via 'builds' is to tell them not every feat they want is available in the town/city they call home this will either make them throw a tantrum and quit whilst sulking about you being unfair, or will spur them into wanting to find trainers for these skills which should in theory allow you to develop a campaign where they play nice whilst slowly getting their toys at your pace...and hey if they dont get those precious feats of choice at the levels they wanted it's not exactly your fault, afterall the trainers are hard to find and may not even want to train them without some sort of reward(and some may even be dead).


...

I have no words, only horror.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 15, 2012, 11:04:01 AM
Quote from: Omnifray;571682
Trouble is I often play in groups where my players can be evenly divided into tactical geniuses, tactical mediocrities and tactical donkeys. In my own view, the better players should get stat handicaps to help the weaker ones shine...


How much of the "tactical genius" comes from rules mastery vs actual situational tactics knowledge?

Your tactical donkeys might surprise you in an OD&D game where tactics are not decided by rulebook memorization.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Omnifray on August 15, 2012, 11:17:13 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;571686
How much of the "tactical genius" comes from rules mastery vs actual situational tactics knowledge?

Your tactical donkeys might surprise you in an OD&D game where tactics are not decided by rulebook memorization.

No, I'm talking about a player who:-

* can read me like an open book every time
* can read the other players like an open book every time
* can manipulate them like puppets dancing on a string, and loves doing so
* has spent more time thinking about actual military tactics than I have
* has a reasonably good head for actual military tactics
* happens to know the rules better than the other players, but not perfectly
* understands abstract ideas quicker than the other players
* understands probabilities somewhat better than the other players

I'm talking about a player who when told stuff by another party member immediately figures out all the implications which that other party member had never been close to figuring out.

There is no real cure for the difference in abilities out there, but a stats handicap might help...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Omnifray on August 15, 2012, 11:20:30 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571685
...

I have no words, only horror.

I personally think it's perfectly reasonable, except that it doesn't really make sense to me from an emulation point of view that all skills require training beyond a certain point. I mean, once you're Xena, warrior-princess, who's going to teach you to be better at sword-fighting? You're already the best. Doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. You might need a sparring partner who can also coach you, but why should she be as good as you are? She might just be another PC in the group. Spar and coach each other.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 15, 2012, 11:24:13 AM
Quote from: Omnifray;571682
In my own view, the better players should get stat handicaps to help the weaker ones shine...


A statement almost beyond satire, although it's been attempted by the best (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 15, 2012, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: Omnifray;571688
No, I'm talking about a player who:-

* can read me like an open book every time
* can read the other players like an open book every time
* can manipulate them like puppets dancing on a string, and loves doing so
* has spent more time thinking about actual military tactics than I have
* has a reasonably good head for actual military tactics
* happens to know the rules better than the other players, but not perfectly
* understands abstract ideas quicker than the other players
* understands probabilities somewhat better than the other players

I'm talking about a player who when told stuff by another party member immediately figures out all the implications which that other party member had never been close to figuring out.

There is no real cure for the difference in abilities out there, but a stats handicap might help...


Sounds like you have a very sharp, on the ball type of player. Rather than discourage such an involved player by nerfing him, encourage the other players to step up their game. So long as the player isn't dominating play through rules wankery I'd say you are lucky to have him as a player.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 15, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;571632
Ben, when you are done whining like a bitch, go reread that section of the AD&D DMG where it talks about asshole players and remember that there are assholes who can still be assholes no matter what game system they use - hence why those gamers are described as assholes.

Fuck me, but you are being a retard. :rolleyes:

Er, excuse me, mister white knight, but read this:

Quote from: Benoist;571531
So if 3rd ed is far from being the only edition with its assholes (one could talk about the 1e DMs who thought Tomb of Horrors was the basic game mode and that you should screw the players at every turn, the thespian types playing 2e railroading the hell out of you, and the 4vengers, obviously), 3rd ed sort of breeds and encourages its own special breed of assholes, so to speak.

You see the part where I say that every edition (and indeed every game) has its assholes? There. I'll even expand that last part when I said 3rd ed has its own special breed of assholes: every game has its own specific breed(s) of asshole, by virtue of its design and the particular inclinations it catters to in people. 3rd ed is in fact no different.

Now I'd appreciate if you bozos actually read the thread instead of just going apeshit about the title which is in fact a liberal quote from Declan. You guys are being the retards here. So read the thread, stop acting like a whiny cunt who can't take a fucking criticism for five minutes, and then we talk about it, alright?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 15, 2012, 12:11:40 PM
Yes, every edition has its assholes.  Since we're doing broad sweeping generalizations, how's this?


AD&D 1e: I am the DM.  I am God.  I'm running the game and you players better not argue with me or I'll just kill your characters.  Bwa ha ha ha ha!

AD&D 2e: "OK Bob, your turn to introduce your character."  "Suddenly the door opens and in strides a tall drow elf clad in woodland color leathers.  Strapped to each hip is a long sword, which he dual wields to perfection."

3e: "Sorry, I don't see that skill on your character sheet, so you can't do it."

4e: "4e finally fixed all these balance problems that plagued D&D before."  "Um, those issues you just listed only happened in 3e."  "Yeah, so?  Like I said, it fixed D&D."  "You do realize that there were more than 25 years of D&D being played before 3e ever came out, right?"  "Whatever, 4e fixes everything."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Omnifray on August 15, 2012, 12:14:55 PM
Quote from: gleichman;571693
A statement almost beyond satire, although it's been attempted by the best (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron).


Are you for real?

Have you ever played golf, or the Chinese/Japanese game Go or Igo?

People play these games with handicaps.

OK, so golf and go are competitive in a way RPGs aren't, but there is still an element of competition in RPGs even if it's only competition for spotlight time, and we're still playing them for fun, so we want a level playing field for everyone...

I'm not talking about stupid things like making the best player do 50 press-ups or he's not allowed to move his figure on the tabletop. I'm just talking about giving the other players higher-level characters than his.

If your objection is that socialism wants to lower everyone to the lowest common denominator (and that is misconceived right-wing polemic), my answer is that in a game where levels can be magicked out of the air, we can "raise" the weaker players rather than "diminishing" the stronger ones. High and low are all relative anyway in this setting.

What's important is that a difference in stats can easily be created to counterbalance a difference in ability...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Omnifray on August 15, 2012, 12:16:57 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571707
...
AD&D 2e: "OK Bob, your turn to introduce your character."  "Suddenly the door opens and in strides a tall drow elf clad in woodland color leathers.  Strapped to each hip is a long sword, which he dual wields to perfection."
...


Yep, that "suddenly" cliche. What an asshole.

:p
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 15, 2012, 12:17:55 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571707
Yes, every edition has its assholes.  Since we're doing broad sweeping generalizations, how's this?


AD&D 1e: I am the DM.  I am God.  I'm running the game and you players better not argue with me or I'll just kill your characters.  Bwa ha ha ha ha!

AD&D 2e: "OK Bob, your turn to introduce your character."  "Suddenly the door opens and in strides a tall drow elf clad in woodland color leathers.  Strapped to each hip is a long sword, which he dual wields to perfection."

3e: "Sorry, I don't see that skill on your character sheet, so you can't do it."

4e: "4e finally fixed all these balance problems that plagued D&D before."  "Um, those issues you just listed only happened in 3e."  "Yeah, so?  Like I said, it fixed D&D."  "You do realize that there were more than 25 years of D&D being played before 3e ever came out, right?"  "Whatever, 4e fixes everything."


You forgot:

OD&D: " Okay, theres like, this ogre standing outside the cave. What do you do?"

" I attack with my trusty sword. What happens?"

................

...." OK get out a fresh sheet of note paper and 3d6."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 15, 2012, 12:18:07 PM
Oh, I'm totally going to make my players do 50 push ups now if they want to play certain classes or to get certain spells.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 15, 2012, 12:19:23 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;571711
You forgot:

OD&D: " Okay, theres like, this ogre standing outside the cave. What do you do?"

" I attack with my trusty sword. What happens?"

................

...." OK get out a fresh sheet of note paper and 3d6."



Actually, from all the recounts of playing with Gary I've heard, it went more like:

Gary:  "Ok, no one is allowed to talk except the caller.  The rest of you can only talk when I ask you."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 15, 2012, 12:20:43 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571712
Oh, I'm totally going to make my players do 50 push ups now if they want to play certain classes or to get certain spells.


I would, but that wouldn't work for my group of recently ex- and active military, they would laugh at me.

Maybe I could make it pullups instead.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 15, 2012, 12:24:00 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571713
Actually, from all the recounts of playing with Gary I've heard, it went more like:

Gary:  "Ok, no one is allowed to talk except the caller.  The rest of you can only talk when I ask you."


Man thats harsh for a one player game where the one dude isn't designated the caller.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 15, 2012, 12:28:43 PM
Quote from: Omnifray;571708
Are you for real?

...

What's important is that a difference in stats can easily be created to counterbalance a difference in ability...


Wow, you're really going to hold to that. I shouldn't be surprised, there's a great deal of LCD style play on this board.

I just hope your good player has other gaming options, perhaps a group that would actually value him. Maybe he should join mine (assuming he's not glued to D&D), that way I can take him off your hands. Where does he live?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Reckall on August 15, 2012, 12:50:53 PM
Well, we played 3.5E and now we play Pathfinder. The only real alternative for us is Call of Cthulhu.

Did I, as the DM, use all the rules? No. It was more a case of "why the fuck am I bothering with this rule exactly?" and move on.

Re: creativity, I feel that 3/3.5E had some of the best D&D fluff ever. I often said how I bought books for the pleasure of reading them (and getting ideas) and I still do.

Re: "builds", I think that things should be put in the right perspective. First: a lot of these "builds" assume that the character can choose from everything published in every single book ever. This is, to put it compassionately, a bit delusional. Second: it is only natural for a character trying to be good in his chosen "path". For example, I play a thief in Pathfinder and I took a feat that allows me to use the DEX modifier instead of the STR one to hit with light weapons. This could be considered a "mini-build", but also something that a character would do in real life. All of us (human beings) look for the best "build" in our life given the cards we were dealt, IMHO.

Re: girlfriends, mine run away weeping "I thought you were an easily fooled moron! Instead I can't fool you! You liar!"

"Hey! Wait! I am an easily fooled moron! I'm not a liar, there has been some misunderstanding! Please come back! Hey!"

Life is hard.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 15, 2012, 01:01:02 PM
Quote from: Omnifray;571708
Are you for real?

Have you ever played golf, or the Chinese/Japanese game Go or Igo?

People play these games with handicaps.

OK, so golf and go are competitive in a way RPGs aren't, but there is still an element of competition in RPGs even if it's only competition for spotlight time, and we're still playing them for fun, so we want a level playing field for everyone...

I'm not talking about stupid things like making the best player do 50 press-ups or he's not allowed to move his figure on the tabletop. I'm just talking about giving the other players higher-level characters than his.

If your objection is that socialism wants to lower everyone to the lowest common denominator (and that is misconceived right-wing polemic), my answer is that in a game where levels can be magicked out of the air, we can "raise" the weaker players rather than "diminishing" the stronger ones. High and low are all relative anyway in this setting.

What's important is that a difference in stats can easily be created to counterbalance a difference in ability...


There is a difference between providing equal opportunity for spotlight time and a heavy handed evening-out of the playing field.

If there is a vast difference in playing experience thats one thing. I played a dumb hireling fighter a couple times letting a brand new player make all the decisions so that he could experience play without being coached by a veteran player. I hit what he told me to hit, carried whatever he wanted me to carry, and let him do all the cool stuff. Once he knew the basics I went back to being a regular contributing player.

Have you talked to your star player about teaching some stuff to the others? Being a mentor can be fun and helps the group improve as a whole.

If the others have no interest in upping their game then you have your answer. Gaming is like any other activity, you get out of it what you put in. Sometimes casual players just don't care enough to improve. If that is the case then artificially giving them advantages is shitting on your good player who gives it his best.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 15, 2012, 01:20:05 PM
Just to precise some things here before there's any more butt hurt about how "it's a troll" and "we're mean to 3rd ed fans" and shit.

(1) the discussion started in the thunderdome thread. I felt like answering to Declan, so I took the conversation to its own thread. Precisely to not shit all over the thunderdome thread. If you don't like the conversation, just move on. Nobody forces you to read it.

(2) the OP's contention (at least MY contention) is NOT that ONLY assholes play 3rd ed and that, therefore, YOU would be an asshole for liking, playing, running 3rd ed. The relevant bits of our posts:

Quote from: Declan MacManus;571320
Here's the problem with 3rd edition...the people for whom it is the game of choice are assholes.

Just to be clear...I'm not stating that playing the game makes them assholes...merely that the game appeals to them precisely BECAUSE they are assholes.
Quote from: Benoist;571334
I think it's undeniable at this point that there are certain types of players, which we would have called rules lawyers, munchkins, power gamers, selfish bastards in years past, that are specifically cattered to by this OCD game design. That makes no fucking doubt in my mind. And the OCD types of course eat it with a spoon.

The contention is that there is something about 3rd ed's design that specifically appeals to rules lawyers, OCD types, entitled players looking over their pal's shoulder to look at the points on their character sheets, what we used to call "assholes". Bad players. And that the design caters to these people in some way that keeps them playing the game.

(3) Lots of very cool and nice people play 3rd ed. You might be one of them. I pointed out I myself still play 3rd ed on occasion... with the right people. Whether that makes me an asshole or not... you be the judge.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tahmoh on August 15, 2012, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: Omnifray;571690
I personally think it's perfectly reasonable, except that it doesn't really make sense to me from an emulation point of view that all skills require training beyond a certain point. I mean, once you're Xena, warrior-princess, who's going to teach you to be better at sword-fighting? You're already the best. Doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. You might need a sparring partner who can also coach you, but why should she be as good as you are? She might just be another PC in the group. Spar and coach each other.


Well yeah for your basic skill feats i agree.  But once they get to the big powerfull stuff further into your average 3e build i figured only a handfull of people are likely to know how to do that particular feat to the level the hero is going to need training(afterall heroes dont magicall wake up and know how to do expert level things that nobody else in the world knows), so i decided if players want to come to me with these big 'builds' that lead to awesome skills down the road i could at least find a way to blend that into my campaign as a way to make the progression from zero to hero relevant to the players and keep certain feats rare in my campaign.  I only ever had one player quit over my ruling(and he was a powergaming twink in practicaly every game i ever ran so no real loss) so overall it worked.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 15, 2012, 01:35:40 PM
Quote from: Benoist;571704
Er, excuse me, mister white knight,

Now I'd appreciate if you bozos actually read the thread instead of just going apeshit about the title which is in fact a liberal quote from Declan. You guys are being the retards here. So read the thread, stop acting like a whiny cunt who can't take a fucking criticism for five minutes, and then we talk about it, alright?


Sure thing, Dungeon Master "You cannot have a real meaningful dungeon crawling experience unless you play AD&D".

Your analysis of the problem with the culture surrounding the games is not including the factors which bred the competitiveness of CharOp shit and that was the Goddamn RPGA, not just the fucking rules. You are busy having a temper tantrum based on the idea that the rules are the gamers. While the rules of a game influence the gamers who use them and certain games attract certain gamers, the rules of a game do not instantly brainwash the gamer who plays that game.

3.x/Pathfinder no more turns gamers into spreadsheet wielding CharOp munchkins than AD&D 1E turns gamers into short-tempered grognards constantly lost in nostalgia shouting "Get off my lawn!" because before 3.x/Pathfinder, AD&D 1E had munchkins and Monty Haul because it is an asshole problem that you are conflating to be a game system problem.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 15, 2012, 01:43:09 PM
Quote from: Benoist;571732
The contention is that there is something about 3rd ed's design that specifically appeals to rules lawyers, OCD types, entitled players looking over their pal's shoulder to look at the points on their character sheets, what we used to call "assholes". Bad players. And that the design caters to these people in some way that keeps them playing the game.


This is confusing a people problem with a set of rules.

Quote from: Benoist;571732
(3) Lots of very cool and nice people play 3rd ed. You might be one of them. I pointed out I myself still play 3rd ed on occasion... with the right people. Whether that makes me an asshole or not... you be the judge.


Yes, you are being an asshole here.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 15, 2012, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;571735
Sure thing, Dungeon Master "You cannot have a real meaningful dungeon crawling experience unless you play AD&D".


I disagree. I have had great dungeon crawls with B/X.

Quote from: jeff37923;571735

Your analysis of the problem with the culture surrounding the games is not including the factors which bred the competitiveness of CharOp shit and that was the Goddamn RPGA, not just the fucking rules. You are busy having a temper tantrum based on the idea that the rules are the gamers. While the rules of a game influence the gamers who use them and certain games attract certain gamers, the rules of a game do not instantly brainwash the gamer who plays that game.


The RPGA was around for 1E and 2E and there were assholes aplenty there too. The difference was that those assholes didn't have the "appeal to the almighty RAW" argument that WOTC era RPGA players did. Fostering and marketing to player entitlement is what helped the culture become so established.

[
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 15, 2012, 02:00:17 PM
Quote from: Benoist;571732
Just to precise some things here before there's any more butt hurt about how "it's a troll" and "we're mean to 3rd ed fans" and shit.

(1) the discussion started in the thunderdome thread. I felt like answering to Declan, so I took the conversation to its own thread. Precisely to not shit all over the thunderdome thread. If you don't like the conversation, just move on. Nobody forces you to read it.


And to top it all off, you can't fucking realize that Declan was just trolling me in the Thunderdome thread and you took his trolling as serious commentary and not just him shitting up the thread.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Anon Adderlan on August 15, 2012, 02:01:27 PM
Quote from: Omnifray;571688
There is no real cure for the difference in abilities out there, but a stats handicap might help...


Or making sure such people actively play a part in making sure the game is fun for everyone?

Quote from: Omnifray;571708
People play these games with handicaps.


Those are also games people play to WIN.

Quote from: Omnifray;571708
OK, so golf and go are competitive in a way RPGs aren't, but there is still an element of competition in RPGs even if it's only competition for spotlight time


Never been any competition for spotlight time in my games. It just seems to flow naturally.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 15, 2012, 02:04:20 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;571744
I disagree. I have had great dungeon crawls with B/X.


Disagree with Benoist, then.


Quote from: Exploderwizard;571744

The RPGA was around for 1E and 2E and there were assholes aplenty there too. The difference was that those assholes didn't have the "appeal to the almighty RAW" argument that WOTC era RPGA players did. Fostering and marketing to player entitlement is what helped the culture become so established.



Yeah, the 1E and 2E RPGA Players did "appeal to the almighty RAW".

I can see how WotC fostered asshole gamers with the final result being 4E and the 4vengers, but it is still a people problem and not a game system problem.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 15, 2012, 02:05:18 PM
My preferred game is AD&D.  I think everyone knows that.  That being said, I gotta say, Declan and 1989 especially, and you Benoist to a slightly less extent, seem to have this irrational hatred of any non AD&D 1e version.  I dare say, it rivals the 3tards and 4vengers in comparison.  I get pissed at some of the fanbois of those editions, but I don't loathe any version itself.

Just a game dudes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 15, 2012, 02:24:58 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;571749


Yeah, the 1E and 2E RPGA Players did "appeal to the almighty RAW".


Yes, and foremost among the R was rule 0. WOTC left that in 3E but shoved it on the back burner. After all, if they couldn't convince a majority of players that "THE RULES" were holy writ then they would lose splatbook sales.


Quote from: jeff37923;571749


I can see how WotC fostered asshole gamers with the final result being 4E and the 4vengers, but it is still a people problem and not a game system problem.


Its always a people problem. Asshole players can infect ANY game system. The problem with the rulestastic 3E is simple human nature. Players tend to focus about whats most important about a given game. In WOTC D&D that means builds and rules. Not all optimizing players of 3E are assholes. You can hardly blame someone for pouring energy into a game's main focus.

 Building a better mousetrap in itself does not make someone an asshole. It CAN suck all the fun out of playing for someone expecting a roleplaying game of exploration & adventure that gets served a deck building experience instead.

WOTC simply set up players to compete with each other and participate in an arms race with the DM via rules focus just to turn a buck. So people that want to play a CCG deck with a name and have fun doing so with others of like mind can have at it. The problem is that these dweebs are showing up at D&D games.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Omnifray on August 15, 2012, 02:41:37 PM
Quote from: gleichman;571722
Wow, you're really going to hold to that. I shouldn't be surprised, there's a great deal of LCD style play on this board.


LCD? Do you mean OCD? Or do you mean, literally, like a calculator screen?

Quote from: gleichman;571722
I just hope your good player has other gaming options, perhaps a group that would actually value him. Maybe he should join mine (assuming he's not glued to D&D), that way I can take him off your hands. Where does he live?


Near Wales... and obviously I do value him as a player, without question; the thing is I suspect he would actually have more fun with him having a handicap, as well as everyone else having more of a chance... he would have more of a sense of achievement when he, inevitably, still managed to put them all in their place anyway...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Omnifray on August 15, 2012, 02:53:05 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;571729
...

Have you talked to your star player about teaching some stuff to the others? Being a mentor can be fun and helps the group improve as a whole.

If the others have no interest in upping their game then you have your answer. Gaming is like any other activity, you get out of it what you put in. Sometimes casual players just don't care enough to improve. If that is the case then artificially giving them advantages is shitting on your good player who gives it his best.


Trouble is everyone I game with more or less is an experienced gamer... they won't take kindly to being condescended to. I know plenty of gamers who've been around since AD&D 1st ed, and some of them are right rubbish, in certain ways. Calling them casual players would be fair in some cases but not in all.

Anyway with my star gamer and cohorts, artificially giving the others advantages isn't shitting on my star gamer - it's making a more fun game for him by making him stretch himself a bit more. That's how I see it anyway.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Imp on August 15, 2012, 02:55:59 PM
"Lowest Common Denominator" probably, which subsumes all types of RPG play that don't take windage into account.

As for the player handicap thing, I'd probably want to have some sort of risk/reward mechanic in play if I were to implement or participate in that. I don't know what would be good, though, bonus xp, some sort of bloodline feature that reveals itself when you get to a certain level, I'm not sure what would be fun and not cheesy right this minute...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 15, 2012, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: Omnifray;571762
LCD? Do you mean OCD? Or do you mean, literally, like a calculator screen?

Lowest Common Denominator, basically aiming your game for those people who are the least capable. I see that a lot on this board (the OSR people see it as a virtue).


Quote from: Omnifray;571762
Near Wales...

Pity, he'd work well in my group. Well, he would if he's open to changing systems and doesn't mind perhaps no longer being at the top of the player heap. Some like the big fish in small pond life.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 15, 2012, 03:00:32 PM
Quote from: Omnifray;571763
Trouble is everyone I game with more or less is an experienced gamer... they won't take kindly to being condescended to. I know plenty of gamers who've been around since AD&D 1st ed, and some of them are right rubbish, in certain ways. Calling them casual players would be fair in some cases but not in all.

Anyway with my star gamer and cohorts, artificially giving the others advantages isn't shitting on my star gamer - it's making a more fun game for him by making him stretch himself a bit more. That's how I see it anyway.


Casual gaming isn't directly related to amount of experience. I know some players who just enjoy rolling the dice, and not having to think too much and they have been playing 25+ years. Its more about the energy put into the game than the number of hours spent playing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 15, 2012, 03:13:25 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;571735
3.x/Pathfinder no more turns gamers into spreadsheet wielding CharOp munchkins than AD&D 1E turns gamers into short-tempered grognards constantly lost in nostalgia shouting "Get off my lawn!" because before 3.x/Pathfinder, AD&D 1E had munchkins and Monty Haul because it is an asshole problem that you are conflating to be a game system problem.

Noooo....3.x/Pathfinder players were that way BEFORE they started playing. Those excrable personality traits are what compel them to play those specific versions of the game.

Quote from: jeff37923;571747
And to top it all off, you can't fucking realize that Declan was just trolling me in the Thunderdome thread and you took his trolling as serious commentary and not just him shitting up the thread.

No...I was completely serious. You and your game are tedious pieces of shit, and that thread is my evidence.

Quote from: jeff37923;571749
I can see how WotC fostered asshole gamers with the final result being 4E and the 4vengers, but it is still a people problem and not a game system problem.

I already proved that you are full of shit with the whole "4vengers" thing in the other thread. This is just another imaginary thing that you are menstruating about because you have the personality of a pouty 12 year old girl.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: 1989 on August 15, 2012, 04:55:23 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;571772


I already proved that you are full of shit with the whole "4vengers" thing in the other thread. This is just another imaginary thing that you are menstruating about because you have the personality of a pouty 12 year old girl.

I have no idea what is being argued about here, but you get a laugh point for use of "menstrauting".
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 15, 2012, 04:56:32 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571499
What a welcoming community of gamers.  I'd think that with the concern that this hobby MIGHT be dying, we'd be nicer to each other, even when we disagree.  

Because there's no way someone who was on the fence about trying gaming would be turned off by the kind of vitriol in this thread.  :)

The greatest danger to the hobby has been and will always be the gamer.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 15, 2012, 05:13:16 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;571788
The greatest danger to the hobby has been and will always be the gamer.


I think this thread showing off the full flower of the hate and disgust board members have for people different than themselves is a perfect example of what therpgsite is all about.

Sadly, such a display will attract as many as it repels. Thus it ever was, thus it ever will be.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 15, 2012, 05:17:52 PM
Quote from: gleichman;571790
I think this thread showing off the full flower of the hate and disgust board members have for people different than themselves is a perfect example of what therpgsite is all about.

Sadly, such a display will attract as many as it repels. Thus it ever was, thus it ever will be.


There's a whole lot of hatred and bitterness on display in this thread, but at 2,825 posts, you must not find therpgsite too unreadable. :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 15, 2012, 05:24:07 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;571791
There's a whole lot of hatred and bitterness on display in this thread, but at 2,825 posts, you must not find therpgsite too unreadable. :D

Most of those come from a "more civilized age... Before the dark times, before the Empire."

To be honest, things were always rather vile here. But there was a better variety of opinion here once. Now it's a matter of looking for a few gems, taking a part of the hobby's pulse- all while holding off boredom and despair as to where we've ended up.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Traveller on August 15, 2012, 05:36:33 PM
To be honest I find this place a breath of fresh air, there are almost no other forums where the combination of erudite discussion and bare knuckle debate can be found. As long as its not done in bad form, its funny more than anything else. Things only turn sour when someone gets tangled up in their handbag and starts taking it seriously.

Yes, we pretend we are elves and magical creatures by throwing dice around and consulting astonishingly expansive and detailed tomes of equally imaginary rules, then we come online and shout at other people about it. Gleichman, neither this nor rpgnet are the hobby, just that part of the hobby that talks about it on the internet. And for my money (and apparently that of most major gaming companies according to GMS), that's not the majority by a long shot.

I mean you're talking about hate and disgust - if you really want to savour what that tastes like head on over to the big purple and say something not in lockstep with the hive mind. Wankery of the first colour shall abound. The difference is they really mean it over there.

By damn, when a man can't call his fellow a cunt in good faith, there you hear the clanking scales of evil.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 15, 2012, 05:39:58 PM
Quote from: The Traveller;571795

By damn, when a man can't call his fellow a cunt in good faith, there you hear the clanking scales of evil.


And here is one of the reasons for despair I spoke of. What a man *can* do and what a man *should* do is a difference well on its way to being lost to time. Far more was lost than gained.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Traveller on August 15, 2012, 05:42:08 PM
Quote from: gleichman;571796
And here is one of the reasons for despair I spoke of. What a man *can* do and what a man *should* do is a difference well on its way to being lost to time. Far more was lost than gained.

Meh, wearing miniskirts used to be a stoning offence.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 15, 2012, 05:53:15 PM
Quote from: The Traveller;571797
Meh, wearing miniskirts used to be a stoning offence.


And thus... nothing ever again should be a stoning (i.e. capital) offense? Yes, that's does pass for logic these days I suppose, or in Traveller's view: "I don't agree with a standard of behavior from the past, therefore I'm for no standards at".

These are games. People play them in different ways toward different ends. That's no call for swearing like a sailor (I know many sailors who swear less actually) and even less call for the hatred on display in this thread.

People have likes and dislikes, and good people should be able to express them without the crude insults we see tossed about here. Save those for the times when you're an emotional basket-case, or appear to always be an emotional basket-case.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Traveller on August 15, 2012, 06:03:57 PM
Quote from: gleichman;571801
And thus... nothing ever again should be a stoning (i.e. capital) offense? Yes, that's does pass for logic these days I suppose, or in Traveller's view: "I don't agree with a standard of behavior from the past, therefore I'm for no standards at".

These are games. People play them in different ways toward different ends. That's no call for swearing like a sailor (I know many sailors who swear less actually) and even less call for the hatred on display in this thread.

People have likes and dislikes, and good people should be able to express them without the crude insults we see tossed about here. Save those for the times when you're an emotional basket-case, or appear to always be an emotional basket-case.
You miss the point. Over on rpgnet things are ostensibly a lot more civil, but the passive aggression is considerably more pointed and personal. You get the feeling a lot of them are biding their time until they can bait you into getting banned for tripping whatever switch they feel like emoting this week, which the mods are more than happy to pander to and even encourage. It matters little which words are used, what counts is the nature of the intention behind them, good or bad. And keep in mind that I haven't been banned there, I walked away voluntarily.

I mean yes if I had to make a choice I'd choose less colourful terms, unless they served to enhance communication, which from a certain perspective they can.

But that's not the point.

Maybe a better way to put it is that the pricetag attached to freedom is that you might not like every single thing that other people do. That they can do it is still something to be appreciated.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kiero on August 15, 2012, 06:07:27 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;571735
Sure thing, Dungeon Master "You cannot have a real meaningful dungeon crawling experience unless you play AD&D".


I did that back in the day, it was shit. Know why? Because dungeon-crawling is shit, doesn't matter what system you use for it, it's fucking boring.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Omnifray on August 15, 2012, 06:17:27 PM
Quote from: Kiero;571806
I did that back in the day, it was shit. Know why? Because dungeon-crawling is shit, doesn't matter what system you use for it, it's fucking boring.

The clue is in the word, dungeon crawl.

Now blowing it up with six metric tonnes of semtex transported from the future on the other hand, THAT could be worthwhile ;-)



PS being serious though, actually I can well envisage a dungeon crawl being brilliant fun, and spent many hours on them in my youth, but I don't think I've ever done a tabletop dungeon crawl which lived up to the best standards I've seen in gaming... a LARP'd dungeon crawl on the other hand can be fantastic as I have many times experienced.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 15, 2012, 06:52:46 PM
I don't think 3e turns ordinary gamers into character-building assholes, and I'd rather believe the majority of people who play and prefer 3e and /or Pathfinder aren't assholes.

Nevertheless, the explicit rewarding of rules mastery attracts and positively enforces a particular brand of assholery. Back in the day those people were called "twinks" or "munchkins" and we were told this was a bad thing and that we shouldn't reward or even allow it.

Now, apparently, it's the expected norm for a significant, or at least significantly vocal, parcel of the hobby.

Can't say it's a playstyle I identify with.

Quote from: Kiero;571806
I did that back in the day, it was shit. Know why? Because dungeon-crawling is shit, doesn't matter what system you use for it, it's fucking boring.

What was it that Black Vulmea said? Oh yeah:

Quote from: Black Vulmea;569101
See a bad movie? Ah, the director and screenwriter were shit and the actors should stick to dogfood commercials.

Read a bad book? Geez, the author sucks and the editor should never've let that crap get near a printer.

Play a bad game? Ohmigawd, that game is totally borked!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: flyingcircus on August 15, 2012, 06:59:09 PM
Man I think the title alone would get you banned on that other RPG site for this thread, I like it....lol
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 15, 2012, 07:24:31 PM
Quote from: The Traveller;571803
You miss the point.


No, you miss mine.

The freedom to speak one's mind is a grand thing. What you and others have done with that freedom, that's far less than grand. You've reduced yourself to little more than ranting children, and are seen as such by any worthy of being called an adult.

But by all means, don't let me get in the way. Have it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Traveller on August 15, 2012, 07:32:43 PM
Quote from: gleichman;571826
The freedom to speak one's mind is a grand thing. What you and others have done with that freedom, that's far less than grand. You've reduced yourself to little more than ranting children, and are seen as such by any worthy of being called an adult.

Shall we dress in Grecian togas and speak in received English accents to appease your sense of propriety? Even the bard himself was not immune to the odd indulgence (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/science/20curs.html?pagewanted=all). Perhaps you consider yourself the better man but that's not my business. I feel this is one of those conversations where I find myself largely speaking to... myself.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tahmoh on August 15, 2012, 07:32:50 PM
Tbh i dont mind dungeon crawls so long as they present something different and arent just an endless trawl of rooms with monster that dont appear to exist for any reason other than to be killed by passing heroes or trapped corridors that make me wonder who decided this perticualr spot needed something deadly aded to make it worthwhile, if i want that stuff i can just crack open my copy of Heroquest and play that instead of wasting time on an rpg equivalent.

Now give me a dungeon thats created for a purpose and has things like monster ecology built into it along with traps in places it would be feasible for a monster or some other entity to set them(be it to protect a weak point of the monsters home or to stop monsters escaping) and im more than willing to explore it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 15, 2012, 11:37:48 PM
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;571829
Tbh i dont mind dungeon crawls so long as they present something different and arent just an endless trawl of rooms with monster that dont appear to exist for any reason other than to be killed by passing heroes or trapped corridors that make me wonder who decided this perticualr spot needed something deadly aded to make it worthwhile, if i want that stuff i can just crack open my copy of Heroquest and play that instead of wasting time on an rpg equivalent.

Now give me a dungeon thats created for a purpose and has things like monster ecology built into it along with traps in places it would be feasible for a monster or some other entity to set them(be it to protect a weak point of the monsters home or to stop monsters escaping) and im more than willing to explore it.

And now I understand the reason for your username.  You foolishly use common sense and logic concerning dungeons, no wonder that your serenity is broken.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 16, 2012, 12:04:19 AM
Quote from: gleichman;571790
I think this thread showing off the full flower of the hate and disgust board members have for people different than themselves is a perfect example of what therpgsite is all about.

Sadly, such a display will attract as many as it repels. Thus it ever was, thus it ever will be.


Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 16, 2012, 12:39:02 AM
Quote from: MGuy;571882
Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.


Yet you are still here? Might you be a troll like Giechman? Bah, that wouldn't be possible? Right?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 16, 2012, 07:05:36 AM
Quote from: 1989;571787
I have no idea what is being argued about here, but you get a laugh point for use of "menstrauting".


I'm living rent-free inside of his head.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 16, 2012, 07:12:46 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;571928
I'm living rent-free inside of his head.


That's kinda gross, I like you but even I have limits. It's a Clint Eastwood thing. :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 16, 2012, 11:19:52 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;571578
My primary games are White Wolf, especially Mage and I think I'm quite approachable.

FWIW, Marleycat, I do agree.   If you were active during my short stint on the WW boards. I may have simply missed you...

:-)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 16, 2012, 11:32:21 AM
Quote from: gleichman;571826

The freedom to speak one's mind is a grand thing. What you and others have done with that freedom, that's far less than grand.

Because it is germane to this thread, and only for that reason:

A) TBP's rules would* sanction this statement because it is threadcrapping.  Topic is 'assholes' and you are effectively acting against that topic.

B) Another sanction option is 'concern trolling'

So not only is the 'more free' environment enabling this topic, but it also seems to support you in complaining about it. You're not bitching to a mod, trying to get the crucible brought forth for a fresh trial by fire. And that's an improvement!

*I say would, except that particular set of mods have no ethical standards. They are never compelled to enforce their own rules, and they are simultaneously permitted to force their own views on posters. So you would get away with it there, I am sure.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 16, 2012, 11:37:51 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;571735
Sure thing, Dungeon Master "You cannot have a real meaningful dungeon crawling experience unless you play AD&D".

Quote from: Exploderwizard;571744
I disagree. I have had great dungeon crawls with B/X.

Quote from: jeff37923;571749
Disagree with Benoist, then.
Actually, the way Jeff understands that argument, it only exists in his head. What I actually said is that if you have not experienced dungeon crawling under the O/AD&D paradigm, then what you've experienced is a knock-off, a copy of the original, not the genuine thing, and you don't really know what it is you are talking about.

That's what I actually said.

I also pointed out that you can experience some good dungeon crawling with various iterations of the game, and that generally these experiences, when they use modules, are either derived from the O/AD&D paradigm in the first place (Temple of Elemental Evil and Return, Rappan Athuk and all Necromancer/Frog God products, games directly inspired of OD&D and AD&D, etc etc.), or the DM is himself familiar with the original O/AD&D experience.

That launched a shitstorm, "this is one true way" blah blah blah. Emotional bullshit, in other words.

Quote from: jeff37923;571735
I can see how WotC fostered asshole gamers with the final result being 4E and the 4vengers, but it is still a people problem and not a game system problem.

That bit I find very interesting. So. You can see how WotC fostered asshole gamers with 4e. How did WotC foster and cater to asshole gamers, exactly? Just by putting columns on its website? Just by putting ads on their website you don't like? They never addressed that crowd directly by doing some actual game design that responds to the desires of these dudes? How about the "balance über alles" that gave us the all classes play the same feel of 4e? How about healing surges, and all that drivel?

And before you tell me "this is 4e, that didn't happen with 3e" I'll call bullshit on that claim. Stuff like the reworking of the rust monster happened during 3rd ed's run. Book of Nine Swords happened during 3rd ed runs. HELL. The modifications between 3.0 and 3.5, which in large part responded to the circle-jerking online from the assholes we are talking about, happened under 3rd ed's watch!

So, to me, if indeed (and you are right on this), the problem starts and ends with people, since it's the people in the first place who fuck up games or have unreasonable expectations, and people who decide how to run their own games at the end of the day, the game's design, the rules, clearly responded to the demands of such players, and fostered, encouraged, some fucked up game play and expectations. There's no doubt in my mind.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: DKChannelBoredom on August 16, 2012, 11:48:26 AM
Quote from: Benoist;572018
Actually, the way Jeff understands that argument, it only exists in his head. What I actually said is that if you have not experienced dungeon crawling under the O/AD&D paradigm, then what you've experienced is a knock-off, a copy of the original, not the genuine thing, and you don't really know what it is you are talking about.

That's what I actually said.


But, and this is a genuine question, don't you think this sounds quite loaded and just a tad derogatory towards other games and/or players who crawl dungeons with other systems or in another style?

For the record, I haven't played in a dungeon crawl since my teenage Red Box years.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 16, 2012, 11:50:44 AM
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;572022
But, and this is a genuine question, don't you think this sounds quite loaded and just a tad derogatory towards other games and/or players who crawl dungeons with other systems or in another style?
If you're asking me if I understand the emotional reaction to that argument, I do, yes. But at the same time, I have that crazy idea that people on this board can actually look beyond that first reaction to understand the substance of what I'm saying.

Maybe I've been wrong all along.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;572022
For the record, I haven't played in a dungeon crawl since my teenage Red Box years.

I don't have a problem with that. It's your gaming, dude. Play what's fun for you! :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 16, 2012, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572018
Actually, the way Jeff understands that argument, it only exists in his head.


If that is true, then why did your statement cause this:

Quote from: Benoist;572018
That launched a shitstorm, "this is one true way" blah blah blah. Emotional bullshit, in other words.


Because it sure sounds like you are butthurt over it not just existing in my head, but several others as well.

Quote from: Benoist;572018
Emotional bullshit.


Fuck it. Benoist, your head is right up your ass on this one.

But I thank you for not shitting up the Thunderdome thread anymore.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 16, 2012, 03:26:32 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572009
FWIW, Marleycat, I do agree.   If you were active during my short stint on the WW boards. I may have simply missed you...

:-)


I was active around 5-7 years ago. I forgot my password there so I don't frequent the WW boards anymore. Funny thing is I have friend requests there that are who knows how old because I can't be arsed to restart my account again. My username was Kumiko there or Kumiko2 because they kept changing the board back then.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 04:34:02 PM
Just my opinion...

Games like GURPS, HERO, or other extremely crunchy games like Harn, do what they do out of a desire to use the rules to simulate reality.  For example, if I want to model a reality where though a dagger and greataxe can both kill you, but it's more likely to get a single-hit kill with a greataxe, then they both can't do 1d6 damage.

WotC on the other hand, introduced rules complexity for the sake of rules complexity.  An exception-based rules design infinitely expandable to allow the sale of never-ending splatbooks is the MtG model writ in RPG form.  It has nothing to with simulating reality, in many cases the rules do the exact opposite.
3e/3.5e/PF are D&D from a Cardgame rules paradigm.

With 4e, the idea was to shift from a pure Cardgame model to more of a MMOG model.  Digital distribution allowed for constant patching of the rules which required monthly subscriptions to be "current".  New rules are everything (just ask Abyssal Maw).  Tying everything into the RPGA and LFR meant that there was an organized method to expand new players (similar to MtG events) while leading to "expansions" where a themed event would contain new rules, adventures, supplements, comics, books, whatever, similar to a MMOG expansion.  It wasn't just game design, it was an IP cross-media marketing blitz.

The problem with these models are, they don't work well with a GM-centric table, which is how all non-officially-sanctioned events work.  With a Cardgame you don't release a card and then say you can't use it, or with a MMOG you don't make a class available and then decide only certain players can make one.

These rules and marketing paradigms imported from other games over time led to the "Cult of RAW", where the player's wishes, as expressed by purchasing power, was considered the ultimate authority at a GM's table by an increasing segment of the playerbase.  Basically if I bought it, I get to use it.

So, a change in rules and marketing paradigms leads to a blending and crossover of RPG, cardgame and MMOG audiences.  As CCG and MMOG audiences absolutely dwarf those of RPGs on a cosmic scale, it doesn't take too much influence to make significant changes.  Add to that that almost all RPGers are also a CCGer, MMOGer, or CRPGer on some level and it's easy to see how the "Cult of RAW" was able to completely dominate major RPG lines like PF, 4e, FFG40k, and SR4.  

All this without even really going into the influence that many RPGs being owned by companies who are nothing more then multi-million or billion-dollar IP warehouses may have had.

Does that make someone who plays Pathfinder an asshole? No.  The only games that really define you as an asshole would be FATAL or RaHoWa.  :D

What it does mean is that the typical 3er is going to have different views from the typical 0er, 1er, 2er or 4er.

Now you want to argue playstyles, goals, and what those games are doing, that's one thing.

To call everyone who plays a certain game an asshole, or OSR-Taliban, Gygax-fellater, 3gger, 4venger is silly.  Those terms are quite rightly reserved for fundamental fanatics of a particular game who argue to the death about any perceived inadequacy, and any game has those.

Personally, I don't think 3e or 4e draws more useless cock-knockers then other forms of D&D.  It does draw more people, period, however, so that would, by default, draw more cock-knockers.  The fact that they enjoy a completely different playstyle then me makes them useless to my gaming table, but that's completely different.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 16, 2012, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572119
Just my opinion...


You're becoming one of my favorite posters here at therpgsite. Run now in terror before that compliment destroys your reputation.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: LordVreeg on August 16, 2012, 04:55:01 PM
Quote from: gleichman;572121
You're becoming one of my favorite posters here at therpgsite. Run now in terror before that compliment destroys your reputation.


He's one of mine as well.
That evens things out.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 16, 2012, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572119
Personally, I don't think 3e or 4e draws more useless cock-knockers then other forms of D&D.  It does draw more people, period, however, so that would, by default, draw more cock-knockers.  The fact that they enjoy a completely different playstyle then me makes them useless to my gaming table, but that's completely different.


So do you agree or disagree that 3e draws more min/max, 'builder', 'dipping' players?

Or do you disagree that these players are necessarily cock-knockers?

Either or both are fine, but it wasn't clear to me when I read your post.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 16, 2012, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572119
Just my opinion...

I agree with everything said in this post.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 05:22:33 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572125
So do you agree or disagree that 3e draws more min/max, 'builder', 'dipping' players?

Or do you disagree that these players are necessarily cock-knockers?

Either or both are fine, but it wasn't clear to me when I read your post.


Any system that allows point-buy or gives an opportunity for min/maxing is going to generally draw players that like CharOp just like any system that disallows point-buy or prevents min-maxing is going to generally turn away players that prefer CharOp.

Whether or not you like CharOp doesn't make you a cock-knocker.  If you're a player that demands full access to the entire splat-verse ignoring the reality of my gaming table, then you're a cock-knocker.  :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 16, 2012, 05:26:16 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572119
Personally, I don't think 3e or 4e draws more useless cock-knockers then other forms of D&D.  It does draw more people, period, however, so that would, by default, draw more cock-knockers.  The fact that they enjoy a completely different playstyle then me makes them useless to my gaming table, but that's completely different.
I would say this is accurate, but expand it thusly:  3.x has more insistently vocal cock-knockers, for the reasons you cite.  They essentially grew up in an environment where

All the world's indeed a stage
And we are merely players
Performers and portrayers
Each another's audience
Outside the gilded cage

...because they didn't know a world before relatively universal internet access.  They have almost always been able to broadcast their thoughts to all and sundry and get some sort of response, often one that agrees with theirs.  Cynicism is magnified a thousand times when everyone else is cynical, too.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 05:39:23 PM
Is there something generational there?  I dunno.  I think you could probably make some kind of argument, particularly with the Pre-Internet Agers/Internet Agers divide.

My gut tells me that based on the forum culture of MMOGs, that I've experienced, it's entirely possible.

On the other hand, the term "Squeaky wheel gets the grease" predates the computer and from what I hear, the OSR is all over G+, so who the hell knows.  :D

We're basically getting back into stereotype/ism territory using age/generation/game as the defining distinction, which when I think about it not being pissed about anything at the moment, seems like a place we don't need to go.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 16, 2012, 05:48:07 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572134
Whether or not you like CharOp doesn't make you a cock-knocker.  If you're a player that demands full access to the entire splat-verse ignoring the reality of my gaming table, then you're a cock-knocker.  :D


Okay, so, that being said, does that apply more or less to 3e than it does to other games?

I think it has to, if for no other reason, there was a LOT more 3e splat.

Quote from: CRKrueger;572144
Is there something generational there?  I dunno.  I think you could probably make some kind of argument, particularly with the Pre-Internet Agers/Internet Agers divide.


Digital natives vs Digital immigrants is a phenomenon observed outside of RPGs as well.  E.g. the fresh batch of graduates expecting Facebook access from work.  With 3e being pretty old (first release was in 2000), I'm not sure it would apply across the board.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 06:07:31 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572148
Okay, so, that being said, does that apply more or less to 3e than it does to other games?

Hmmm, I see where you're going. :hmm:

Game A that, due to the nature of its design, draws more CharOpers then Game B would naturally also draw more players who assume they can CharOp freely and become assholes if they can't CharOp to their heart's content because that group is by definition a subset of CharOpers.

Can't refute that one.

However, is there evidence that entitled shits are a larger segment of the CharOp playerbase then the entitled shits who write 25-page character backstories and demand the GM accept it are of the IC Roleplayer playerbase?

I think the best you could prove is that 3e draws a different kind of cock-knocker, or even a larger number based on total sales, or even those more inclined to internet expression, but not  a larger percentage.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 16, 2012, 06:07:46 PM
To be fair, even though I run oldschool D&D, if a player wanted to play an UA Barbarian or Cavalier, or use the weapon specialization rules, or some 2E kit with a heaping of cheese, or an Arduin Star-Powered Mage I'd say no.

However, as opposed to when I played 3e, that has never happened.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 06:14:39 PM
Quote from: Planet Algol;572156
To be fair, even though I run oldschool D&D, if a player wanted to play an UA Barbarian or Cavalier, or use the weapon specialization rules, or some 2E kit with a heaping of cheese, I'd say no.

However, as opposed to when I played 3e, that has never happened.


Off-Topic, but the UA get's a bad rap.  I've found dealing with the UA is about as problematic as reading and following the rules.  Not flaming, just being serious.  Played hardcore AD&D for over a decade, in all that time one person, ONE, actually rolled up scores sufficient to be a Cavalier Class Paladin.  The number of "legit" Cavaliers and Barbarians I can count on one hand.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 06:22:00 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572155
Hmmm, I see where you're going. :hmm:

Game A that, due to the nature of its design, draws more CharOpers then Game B would naturally also draw more players who assume they can CharOp freely and become assholes if they can't CharOp to their heart's content because that group is by definition a subset of CharOpers.

Can't refute that one.

However, is there evidence that entitled shits are a larger segment of the CharOp playerbase then the entitled shits who write 25-page character backstories and demand the GM accept it all are of the IC Roleplayer playerbase?

I think the best you could prove is that 3e draws a different kind of cock-knocker, or even a larger number based on total sales, but not necessarily a larger percentage.


The reason CharOpers boil with rage when somone say's core only is because core only will not balance the game. If you let people play Clerics and Druids then snarl at my Duskblade you'er not balancing the game you're just being a dick.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 06:41:26 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572159
The reason CharOpers boil with rage when somone say's core only is because core only will not balance the game. If you let people play Clerics and Druids then snarl at my Duskblade you'er not balancing the game you're just being a dick.


I'm not sure if you're expressing your own opinion, or that of a CharOper.

This type of thinking is the "Culture of RAW" at work.  It carries with it the assumption that I care or even believe in absolute game balance through the rules.  I don't.  The writer of the rules and the players in my game don't worry about or determine game balance at my table.  I do.  If the concept behind the splat Duskblade class makes sense in my game world, I will use it.  If the concept of the core Shadowdancer PRC does not, I won't.  Or I may cut and add as necessary to make the class fit as I see it.  

Take any MMOG in existence.  Even run on computers, with code, no human judgement element of rulings at the table, any one fix that supposedly allowed the game to attain perfect balance ends up causing a different imbalance somewhere else.  One ability is GodMode until another takes it's place and there's always going to be a Flavor of the Month class who possesses, according to the forums, the hottest IWIN button.  You'd almost think that the constant system of Nerfs and Balance-chasing was done on purpose to generate interest in lieu of actual content. :eek:

For anyone who thinks that WotC adds Splat options in order to balance anything, you're sadly deluded, practically a danger to yourself in a Capitalist society.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 16, 2012, 07:06:44 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572119
So, a change in rules and marketing paradigms leads to a blending and crossover of RPG, cardgame and MMOG audiences.  As CCG and MMOG audiences absolutely dwarf those of RPGs on a cosmic scale, it doesn't take too much influence to make significant changes.  Add to that that almost all RPGers are also a CCGer, MMOGer, or CRPGer on some level and it's easy to see how the "Cult of RAW" was able to completely dominate major RPG lines like PF, 4e, FFG40k, and SR4.  

All this without even really going into the influence that many RPGs being owned by companies who are nothing more then multi-million or billion-dollar IP warehouses may have had.

Does that make someone who plays Pathfinder an asshole? No.  The only games that really define you as an asshole would be FATAL or RaHoWa.  :D


You may very well be correct. However, this does not change the fact that this "change in rules and marketing paradigms" brought out traits in players that had, prior to WOTC D&D, been considered bad traits by most adult players (rules lawyering, excessive mini-maxing, munchkinism, etc.). I considered most players with such traits assholes from when I started playing D&D in 1975, I don't see why WOTC enabling these traits with their editions of D&D somehow means I need to stop considering players who stress such traits assholes.  WOTC D&D may not CAUSE this behavior, but WOTC seems to depend on people with these negative traits for much of their sales.

Side Note: You said "Add to that that almost all RPGers are also a CCGer, MMOGer, or CRPGer on some level..."  I guess I'm one of the weird ones who never got into any of these games. I played CCGs a few times when M:TG came out and never found them interesting enough to even buy a deck, CRPGs never really interested me as they seemed extremely limiting compared to playing under a human GM and far too combat oriented -- I but one, play an hour or two, get bored and never play it again. MMOGs suffer from the same problems that CRPGs have plus numerous others (lots of asshole players that you can't kick out, constant changes, monthly fees, etc.) Perhaps my lack of interest in these types of games is why I have little interest in tabletop RPGs influenced strongly by CCGs, CRPGs and MMOGs.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 07:17:36 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572161
I'm not sure if you're expressing your own opinion, or that of a CharOper.

This type of thinking is the "Culture of RAW" at work.  It carries with it the assumption that I care or even believe in absolute game balance through the rules.  I don't.  The writer of the rules and the players in my game don't worry about or determine game balance at my table.  I do.  If the concept behind the splat Duskblade class makes sense in my game world, I will use it.  If the concept of the core Shadowdancer PRC does not, I won't.  Or I may cut and add as necessary to make the class fit as I see it.  

For anyone who thinks that WotC adds Splat options in order to balance anything, you're sadly deluded, practically a danger to yourself in a Capitalist society.


The Duskblade is a Fighter/Mage analog. It's a funtional class nothing to write home about. As a fan of Gish Builds (Warrior/Spellcaster combinations) I often bring Duskblades to the table to avoid scaring off new dm's with the sort of crazy builds you need to be a viable Gish in 3e

If someone wants to play something that may not fit in your world try taking to him like an adult. Sometimes you can find a way to fit stuf in, but I can understand not allowing in some of the more "exotic" 3e stuff (Psionics, Incarnium, Tome of Magic). Though your world must be pretty dull if you can't even fit the Shadowdancer into it.

and of corse WotC prints splats for the $ it's just that the splats are not any less balaced than the core game
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 16, 2012, 07:24:31 PM
Quote
Though your world must be pretty dull if you can't even fit the Shadowdancer into it.


This...seems like a stretch to me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 08:03:36 PM
Quote from: CerilianSeeming;572170
This...seems like a stretch to me.


D&D is by default full of crazy shit. If I recall right D&D under Gygax had psionics and ray guns, people jumping through shadows dosen't seem like a stretch.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 16, 2012, 08:06:07 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572168
Though your world must be pretty dull if you can't even fit the Shadowdancer into it.

I don't think a lack of dancing-themed character options is going to make my pulp sword & sorcery milieu dull.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 16, 2012, 08:06:50 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572175
D&D is by default full of crazy shit. If I recall right D&D under Gygax had psionics and ray guns, people jumping through shadows dosen't seem like a stretch.

So campaigns that don't feature psionics or ray guns are pretty dull as well?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 16, 2012, 08:18:50 PM
Quote from: gleichman;572121
You're becoming one of my favorite posters here at therpgsite. Run now in terror before that compliment destroys your reputation.

Hell, I did him one better and reposted with attribution that post to my LJ account.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 16, 2012, 08:20:27 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572144
Is there something generational there?  I dunno.  I think you could probably make some kind of argument, particularly with the Pre-Internet Agers/Internet Agers divide.

My gut tells me that based on the forum culture of MMOGs, that I've experienced, it's entirely possible.
I was trying to formulate a non-confrontational way to express it.  I will have to think a bit more and see about posting something on this later.

Quote
On the other hand, the term "Squeaky wheel gets the grease" predates the computer and from what I hear, the OSR is all over G+, so who the hell knows.  :D
From what I can tell, G+ has all the worst qualities of a blog, mixed with all the worst qualities of Twitter.  :)

Quote
We're basically getting back into stereotype/ism territory using age/generation/game as the defining distinction, which when I think about it not being pissed about anything at the moment, seems like a place we don't need to go.
Agreed.  I honestly don't want to start up an edition war or something like that, but I really do think there is a cultural divide that is difficult to surmount, because it is difficult to define.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 08:23:11 PM
The ShadowDancer's requirements are:

Skills
Move Silently 8 ranks, Hide 10 ranks, Perform (dance) 5 ranks.

Feats
Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility.

Learning those 100% mundane skills and feats does not prepare one for being able to contact the Plane of Shadow, let alone summon from it, and mini-teleport by tunneling through it.

One of the major shortcomings of WotC-era D&D is that powers and kewl-shit is assigned willy-nilly without any of the designers realizing what those powers actually mean outside of numbers-crunching, and what they state about the cosmology of the setting.

To be allowed in my main D&D world, the ShadowDancer would have to belong to a particular religion or cult that could train them in the abilities they were seeking and would have to qualify through more then just mundane thief/assassin abilities.

IIRC, somewhere in 3.0 the rulebooks did say PRCs were optional and might require additional requirements from the GM, not sure if that survived through to 3.5 and PF.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 16, 2012, 08:28:34 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572175
D&D is by default full of crazy shit. If I recall right D&D under Gygax had psionics and ray guns, people jumping through shadows dosen't seem like a stretch.


Some GMs create a campaign world where only certain classes, monsters, spells, magic items, feats, prestige classes, special abilities, etc. fit the world. Some GMs may not have a world but limit things to the certain selected books or parts of books because that's all they wish to have to deal with in their campaign. IMHO, the GM should never feel obligated to include things just because they were published.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 16, 2012, 08:36:10 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572175
D&D is by default full of crazy shit. If I recall right D&D under Gygax had psionics and ray guns, people jumping through shadows dosen't seem like a stretch.

People always misread what I mean lol.

What I'm saying is that it is a stretch to assume that a world is dull just because it doesn't have people teleporting to the Plane of Shadow and whatnot.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 16, 2012, 08:46:32 PM
In my games the Plane of Shadow was pretty much the home turf of everything Which Should Not Be Seen, and so Shadowdancers were, to a member, completely batshit insane.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572183
The ShadowDancer's requirements are:

Skills
Move Silently 8 ranks, Hide 10 ranks, Perform (dance) 5 ranks.

Feats
Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility.

Learning those 100% mundane skills and feats does not prepare one for being able to contact the Plane of Shadow, let alone summon from it, and mini-teleport by tunneling through it.


Holy fuck that's pants-on-head retarded. So a PC start's out as a rouge or fighter he may never get any (su) or (sp) abilities till the end of time, even if he jumps ship to a prestige class. If one of your players wants to multiclass into a spellcasting class do you not let him.  I bet the the Book of Weeaboo Fightan' Magic would cause you to burst an artery.

Quote from: CRKrueger;572183
To be allowed in my main D&D world, the ShadowDancer would have to belong to a particular religion or cult that could train them in the abilities they were seeking and would have to qualify through more then just mundane thief/assassin abilities.


This is shit DMing. Ban shit for being overpowered and I may point and laugh (If you clearly know nothing of game balance). Ban shit for not fitting into your homebrewed setting and I can grudgingly accept. But saying no you don't get into the PRC unless the player sucks your cock. That's just being a petty tyrant. You are the DM, you control the world, you control the monsters, you control the NPC's. What you don't get to control your PC's characters.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 09:19:06 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572191
You are the DM, you control the world

and... controlling the world and the NPCs means that the GM decides how those classes are used in his campaign.  

If you want to be a ShadowDancer, your character has to somehow gain access to those who are ShadowDancers, and they must agree to train him.
 
If your mage in Hyboria wants to join the Black Circle, he needs to be Stygian and a worshipper of Set.  

If your warrior wants to be a "Paragon of Honored Steel", he needs to... hopefully you're not so dense you can't get the point.

Needing to fulfull the requirements of a class that are the same to everyone in the campaign, even if they're not the same as the rulebook is according to you, "sucking the GM's cock"?  I'm afraid, child, you have some personal power issues you need to get out, not to mention a possible sexual one as well. ;)

You're doing such a good job of playing the little entitled shit that is the stereotype of the 3er claimed in the OP, I'm thinking you're probably trolling.  

By your language, however, and stating of what are obviously echo-chamber groupthink opinions as facts, I'm thinking you might be serious.  Which is unfortunate.

BTW, are you an import from TGD or awfulpurple?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 16, 2012, 09:21:25 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572191
This is shit DMing. Ban shit for being overpowered and I may point and laugh (If you clearly know nothing of game balance). Ban shit for not fitting into your homebrewed setting and I can grudgingly accept. But saying no you don't get into the PRC unless the player sucks your cock. That's just being a petty tyrant. You are the DM, you control the world, you control the monsters, you control the NPC's. What you don't get to control your PC's characters.


Sorry, but he basically is banning it for not fitting his campaign setting as in his campaign the only way someone could get those shadowdancer powers is to be a member of a group that teaches those abilities. Quite frankly, your response to this GM setting decision is an excellent example of the type of behavior that makes people think "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Doom on August 16, 2012, 09:23:39 PM
Indeed, it's that kind of response that really establishes the cliche.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 09:29:33 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572193

You're doing such a good job of playing the little entitled shit that is the stereotype of the 3er claimed in the OP, I'm thinking you're probably trolling.  


You see like a 2e DM who's still butthurt that players no longer feel the need to suck his cock to not die from death no save.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: LordVreeg on August 16, 2012, 09:35:19 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572183
The ShadowDancer's requirements are:

Skills
Move Silently 8 ranks, Hide 10 ranks, Perform (dance) 5 ranks.

Feats
Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility.

Learning those 100% mundane skills and feats does not prepare one for being able to contact the Plane of Shadow, let alone summon from it, and mini-teleport by tunneling through it.

One of the major shortcomings of WotC-era D&D is that powers and kewl-shit is assigned willy-nilly without any of the designers realizing what those powers actually mean outside of numbers-crunching, and what they state about the cosmology of the setting.

To be allowed in my main D&D world, the ShadowDancer would have to belong to a particular religion or cult that could train them in the abilities they were seeking and would have to qualify through more then just mundane thief/assassin abilities.

IIRC, somewhere in 3.0 the rulebooks did say PRCs were optional and might require additional requirements from the GM, not sure if that survived through to 3.5 and PF.


Ah.  We end up here again, my friend.

"Make sure that the system you choose matches the setting and game you want to play, as eventually, the game and setting will match the system."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572197
You see like a 2e DM who's still butthurt that players no longer feel the need to suck his cock to not die from death no save.


Shh, the adults were talking.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 09:45:37 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572183
The ShadowDancer's requirements are:

Skills
Move Silently 8 ranks, Hide 10 ranks, Perform (dance) 5 ranks.

Feats
Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility.

Learning those 100% mundane skills and feats does not prepare one for being able to contact the Plane of Shadow, let alone summon from it, and mini-teleport by tunneling through it.


Seriously what the fuck. This shit is why the Fighter/ Wizard thread  has gone on for 400 pages. If you want to play Conan d20 fucking play E6.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 16, 2012, 09:53:39 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572191
This is shit DMing. Ban shit for being overpowered and I may point and laugh (If you clearly know nothing of game balance). Ban shit for not fitting into your homebrewed setting and I can grudgingly accept. But saying no you don't get into the PRC unless the player sucks your cock. That's just being a petty tyrant. You are the DM, you control the world, you control the monsters, you control the NPC's. What you don't get to control your PC's characters.

Priest of the RAW: On Prestige Classes, we must hear the words of the RAW.

True Believers: The RAW is Great. The RAW is Good.

Priest of the RAW: From the DMG, 3.5 Version, page 176: "Prestige Classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definite. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself."

True Believers: We thank the RAW for this absolute truth.

Priest of the RAW: From the DMG, 3.5 Version, page 197: "Some of the best prestige classes are the ones you design yourself for your own campaign. Ideally, a prestige class you design yourself is tied to an organization or culture in your campaign world."

True Believers: The RAW is Great. The RAW is Good.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 16, 2012, 09:58:58 PM
Quote from: RandallS;572203
Priest of the RAW: On Prestige Classes, we must hear the words of the RAW.


/thread
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 10:07:33 PM
Quote from: RandallS;572203
Priest of the RAW: On Prestige Classes, we must hear the words of the RAW.

True Believers: The RAW is Great. The RAW is Good.

Priest of the RAW: From the DMG, 3.5 Version, page 176: "Prestige Classes are purely optional and always under the preview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definite. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself."

True Believers: We thank the RAW for this absolute truth.

Priest of the RAW: From the DMG, 3.5 Version, page 197: "Some of the best prestige classes are the ones you design yourself for your own campaign. Ideally, a prestige class you design yourself is tied to an organization or culture in your campaign world."

True Believers: The RAW is Great. The RAW is Good.

Wow you are strawmannig so hard I think you might actualy shit straw

By RAW Monks are not proficient with their own hands, and by RAW if you have the prerequisites for a pretige class you can fucking take your prestige class. If you don't let people have them it only means CharOpers will play Druids. Why is it that grognards spazz out over prestige classes so hard.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 16, 2012, 10:10:55 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572207
Wow you are strawmannig so hard I think you might actualy shit straw

By RAW Monks are not proficient with their own hands, and by RAW if you have the prerequisites for a pretige class you can fucking take your prestige class. If you don't let people have them it only means CharOpers will play Druids. Why is it that grognards spazz out over prestige classes so hard.


These goalposts look heavy. Need a hand?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 10:13:50 PM
Quote from: RandallS - From the DMG, 3.5 Version, page 197:
"Some of the best prestige classes are the ones you design yourself for your own campaign. Ideally, a prestige class you design yourself is tied to an organization or culture in your campaign world."


Knew it said it in there somewhere, wasn't aware that it perfectly reinforced my     way of doing things.  Thanks for finding it.  :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 16, 2012, 10:15:38 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572207
Wow you are strawmannig so hard I think you might actualy shit straw

By RAW Monks are not proficient with their own hands, and by RAW if you have the prerequisites for a pretige class you can fucking take your prestige class. If you don't let people have them it only means CharOpers will play Druids. Why is it that grognards spazz out over prestige classes so hard.


Not proficient with their hands?  There's no 'weapon proficiency: unarmed', and I think that their 'Improved Unarmed Combat' that makes them treat their hands as weapons when attacking so they don't provoke AoO's will work just fine for that regardless of interpretation.  And yes, it's on the GM to determine the availability of the prestige classes in THEIR OWN GAME.

I mean honestly, are you trying to say that the RAW is some kind of bludgeon that a player can use on a GM?  That's just silly, man.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: The Butcher;572210
These goalposts look heavy. Need a hand?


Fuck you. At no point in this thread did I say anthing about RAW untill you jackasses started strawmanning.

But fuck it let's yeah let's move those goalposts. How exactly dose one of your PC's having a Prestige Class wound fragile grognard hearts so badly that you feel the need to piss and moan on the internet
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 16, 2012, 10:25:02 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572207
Wow you are straw-manning so hard I think you might actually shit straw

By RAW Monks are not proficient with their own hands, and by RAW if you have the prerequisites for a prestige class you can fucking take your prestige class. If you don't let people have them it only means CharOpers will play Druids. Why is it that grognards spazz out over prestige classes so hard.

You cannot be that retarded.  The above-quoted citation explicitly states that Prestige Classes are optional, and exist at the Dungeon Master's discretion. You as a player have no power to demand that your character take that class.  If the Dungeon Master decries that the class you want is not available, then his word is law and you either quit his table or suck it up and do without.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 16, 2012, 10:25:05 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572215
Fuck you. At no point in this thread did I say anthing about RAW untill you jackasses started strawmanning.

But fuck it let's yeah let's move those goalposts. How exactly dose one of your PC's having a Prestige Class wound fragile grognard hearts so badly that you feel the need to piss and moan on the internet


It's not the question of 'Can they have it?'; it's the idea that they're entitled to have it without GM input.  That simple.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 16, 2012, 10:25:28 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572211
Knew it said it in there somewhere, wasn't aware that it perfectly reinforced my     way of doing things.  Thanks for finding it.  :D


The purpose of prestige classes in 3.x was not to provide lots of power-ups, but to allow the GM an easy way to tailor special abilities for specialists in specific organizations or races or cultures in her campaign world. The rules for them actually reflect this. Hell, the examples in the DMG generally reflect the idea (although they obviously are not tailored for a specific campaign).

IMHO, when used as intended and under the strict control of the GM, they are actually a pretty good idea. Unfortunately, they are a powergamer's wet dream if the GM just allows any prestige class published in his campaign world and/or allows anyone to take them even if they are not somehow strongly associated with the prestige class' organization/culture. Naturally, powergamers loudly demand that GM's ignore the advice in the DMG and allow any character access to all prestige classes. Unfortunately (and again IMHO), too few GMs stand up to their demands even with the precious "rules as written" on their side.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 16, 2012, 10:25:46 PM
*rinnnnnng*

Hrm?  What's that?  Oh!  The alarm clock!

Looks like school is about to start.

:popcorn:
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 16, 2012, 10:27:34 PM
Quote from: RandallS;572218
The purpose of prestige classes in 3.x was not to provide lots of power-ups, but to allow the GM an easy way to tailor special abilities for specialists in specific organizations or races or cultures in her campaign world. The rules for them actually reflect this. Hell, the examples in the DMG generally reflect the idea (although they obviously are not tailored for a specific campaign).

IMHO, when used as intended and under the strict control of the GM, they are actually a pretty good idea. Unfortunately, they are a powergamer's wet dream if the GM just allows any prestige class published in his campaign world and/or allows anyone to take them even if they are not somehow strongly associated with the prestige class' organization/culture. Naturally, powergamers loudly demand that GM's ignore the advice in the DMG and allow any character access to all prestige classes. Unfortunately (and again IMHO), too few GMs stand up to their demands even with the precious "rules as written" on their side.


I'd like to point out as an addition to all this that they're included in the DMG, not in the PHB, which should give some indication of where the control for them would lie even without specific direction.  Much like magic items and WBL...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 16, 2012, 10:36:07 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572207
Wow you are strawmannig so hard I think you might actualy shit straw

If you are going to try to steal my quotes, at least get them right.

Also, punctuate them correctly.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;572220
I'd like to point out as an addition to all this that they're included in the DMG, not in the PHB, which should give some indication of where the control for them would lie even without specific direction.  Much like magic items and WBL...

That's actually a really shitty argument. This isn't Paranoia, where people have to pretend they haven't read the DM books. Which book something is in gives absolutely no indication who should be talking about it or using it. Most prestiges classes aren't in the DMG, just like most items. And the spells in the PHB, the DM  should have just as much control over them as the items or PrCs, not less because they are in the PHB.

It's especially stupid because of how unnecessary it is, since the rules for PRCs spell out the optional nature.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 10:38:39 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;572216
If the Dungeon Master decries that the class you want is not available, then his word is law and you either quit his table or suck it up and do without.

That's true for fucking every thing. If the DM wants core only I can only cringe, If he pulls out a fumble chart I can only punch him in his pick face and find another game. At no point have I questioned a DMs prerogative to ban and houserule I only said that abusing that power is a dick move

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572191

Ban shit for not fitting into your homebrewed setting and I can grudgingly accept.


Is noone even reading my posts
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 16, 2012, 10:42:58 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572207


By RAW Monks are not proficient with their own hands, and by RAW if you have the prerequisites for a pretige class you can fucking take your prestige class. If you don't let people have them it only means CharOpers will play Druids. Why is it that grognards spazz out over prestige classes so hard.


(Bolding mine)

Yes, I believe we are.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 16, 2012, 10:45:18 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;572224
(Bolding mine)

Yes, I believe we are.


That came after RandallS brought up the RAW. Mistborn did not bring up RAW until after RandallS, exactly like he said.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 16, 2012, 10:47:23 PM
Holy shit the comedy train never stops withthese weiners!

Can you imagine the disgust that the 1e ad&d class based weapon restrictions would elicit from these baboons.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572221
If you are going to try to steal my quotes, at least get them right.

Also, punctuate them correctly.

Ah, Sempai your harsh words only increase my love for you.

Since you're here why is it that grognard rage so hard over PRCs.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 16, 2012, 10:57:54 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572227
Since you're here why is it that grognard rage so hard over PRC's.


Grognard rage so hard over PrCs (not possessive, no apostrophe) because grognards hate player empowerment.

While PrCs were not originally intended as a method of player empowerment, they quickly became one. Players got to say they were a member of a cool organization or had some cool features just by meeting some pre-reqs.

This angers grognard, who is fundamentally about DM wanking about greatness of campaign while pissing on players.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 11:00:32 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572228
Grognard rage so hard over PrCs (not possessive, no apostrophe) because grognards hate player empowerment.

While PrCs were not originally intended as a method of player empowerment, they quickly became one. Players got to say they were a member of a cool organization or had some cool features just by meeting some pre-reqs.

This angers grognard, who is fundamentally about DM wanking about greatness of campaign while pissing on players.


But the people in this thead will never admit that.

Also the organization thing kinda got dropped as 3.5e went on.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 16, 2012, 11:01:48 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572191
This is shit DMing. Ban shit for being  overpowered and I may point and laugh (If you clearly know nothing of  game balance). Ban shit for not fitting into your homebrewed setting and  I can grudgingly accept. But saying no you don't get into the PRC  unless the player sucks your cock. That's just being a petty tyrant. You  are the DM, you control the world, you control the monsters, you  control the NPC's. What you don't get to control your PC's  characters.

Quote from: Kaelik;572228
Grognard rage so hard over PrCs (not possessive, no apostrophe) because grognards hate player empowerment.

While PrCs were not originally intended as a method of player empowerment, they quickly became one. Players got to say they were a member of a cool organization or had some cool features just by meeting some pre-reqs.

This angers grognard, who is fundamentally about DM wanking about greatness of campaign while pissing on players.
Show us on the doll where the bad DM touched you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 11:07:11 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;572232
Show us on the doll where the bad DM touched you.


What constitutes a good DM anyway. (In your opinion.)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 16, 2012, 11:10:42 PM
The only possible criteria that matters: one whose players enjoy the game they run.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tommy Brownell on August 16, 2012, 11:12:23 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572237
The only possible criteria that matters: one whose players enjoy the game they run.


This is my answer.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 16, 2012, 11:13:13 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;572232
Show us on the doll where the bad DM touched you.

I'm smart enough not to play with grognards. It's never comes up.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 11:20:34 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572237
The only possible criteria that matters: one whose players enjoy the game they run.


The thing is that on these boards "Good DMs" seem to be some sort of magical fairy that fixes all the rules, ensures fighters don't get overshadowed by the party wizard, and gives everyone free cake. People here seem to think the DM is bad if the game isn't 50% magical tea party, whereas I would not find such a game enjoyable.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 16, 2012, 11:24:28 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572228
Grognard rage so hard over PrCs (not possessive, no apostrophe) because grognards hate player empowerment.

While PrCs were not originally intended as a method of player empowerment, they quickly became one. Players got to say they were a member of a cool organization or had some cool features just by meeting some pre-reqs.

This angers grognard, who is fundamentally about DM wanking about greatness of campaign while pissing on players.



You have it right.  Only the opposite.  Not a big shocker that you'd be totally wrong with this.

See, "grognards" are completely for player empowerment.  In fact, it's highly encouraged.  Creative ideas and role-playing were highly encouraged back in the day.  I find it a bit ironic that someone who favors WOTC D&D much more than TSR D&D would claim that grognards are against player empowerment when it's 3e that started with the whole "if you don't have a skill for it, you can't do it."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 16, 2012, 11:31:01 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572243
You have it right.  Only the opposite.  Not a big shocker that you'd be totally wrong with this.

See, "grognards" are completely for player empowerment.  In fact, it's highly encouraged.  Creative ideas and role-playing were highly encouraged back in the day.  I find it a bit ironic that someone who favors WOTC D&D much more than TSR D&D would claim that grognards are against player empowerment when it's 3e that started with the whole "if you don't have a skill for it, you can't do it."


Magical Tea Party is not player empowerment. You only succed in MTP if the DM allows you to, and when you do it feels hollow because you know deep down inside that the DM could have just as easily said no.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 16, 2012, 11:33:59 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572245
Magical Tea Party is not player empowerment. You only succed in MTP if the DM allows you to, and when you do it feels hollow because you know deep down inside that the DM could have just as easily said no.



What are you even talking about?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 16, 2012, 11:37:13 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572245
Magical Tea Party is not player empowerment. You only succed in MTP if the DM allows you to, and when you do it feels hollow because you know deep down inside that the DM could have just as easily said no.


That's exactly correct.  It's a consensual game, not a competitive one.  You're not playing against the GM, and by acceding to play in his game, it's a tacit agreement that he does his best to make the game enjoyable, otherwise there's no reason to play.

If you want to just challenge yourself against monsters using rulesets, there's always the Lone Wolf books, or just rolling random encounters on a blank mapsheet.

Or you could go play MMO's.  But the very basis for the game is that the GM will provide you with challenges that will test your luck and skill at the game without overpowering you.  Otherwise every game would start with "An Ancient Red Dragon swoops down and breaths fire on you.  You all made your saves?  Ok, you die anyway! HAHAHAHA Losers!"

Instead, the GM presents challenges and responds to player's actions appropriately.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 16, 2012, 11:44:31 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572239
I'm smart enough not to play with grognards. It's never comes up.
Is it because they make you feel small in the pants for being a shitty player?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 16, 2012, 11:56:57 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572237
The only possible criteria that matters: one whose players enjoy the game they run.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;572243
You have it right.  Only the opposite.  Not a big shocker that you'd be totally wrong with this.

See, "grognards" are completely for player empowerment.  In fact, it's highly encouraged.  Creative ideas and role-playing were highly encouraged back in the day.  I find it a bit ironic that someone who favors WOTC D&D much more than TSR D&D would claim that grognards are against player empowerment when it's 3e that started with the whole "if you don't have a skill for it, you can't do it."

Quote from: Panzerkraken;572249
That's exactly correct.  It's a consensual game, not a competitive one.  You're not playing against the GM, and by acceding to play in his game, it's a tacit agreement that he does his best to make the game enjoyable, otherwise there's no reason to play.

If you want to just challenge yourself against monsters using rulesets, there's always the Lone Wolf books, or just rolling random encounters on a blank mapsheet.

Or you could go play MMO's.  But the very basis for the game is that the GM will provide you with challenges that will test your luck and skill at the game without overpowering you.  Otherwise every game would start with "An Ancient Red Dragon swoops down and breaths fire on you.  You all made your saves?  Ok, you die anyway! HAHAHAHA Losers!"

Instead, the GM presents challenges and responds to player's actions appropriately.
Flawless Victories!

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572242
The thing is that on these boards "Good DMs"  seem to be some sort of magical fairy that fixes all the rules, ensures  fighters don't get overshadowed by the party wizard, and gives everyone  free cake. People here seem to think the DM is bad if the game isn't  50% magical tea party, whereas I would not find such a game  enjoyable.
Once you go full retard, you never go back.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 17, 2012, 12:01:15 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572245
Magical Tea Party is not player empowerment. You only succeed in Magical Tea Party if the Dungeon Master allows you to, and when you do it feels hollow because you know deep down inside that the Dungeon Master could have just as easily said no.

Why are you acting as if you are a refuge from the Raids & Dungeons Forum of the official World of Warcraft message boards?  D&D is not the raiding scene, and the Dungeon Master is neither a mindless script running code nor a malevolent idiot god screaming "INK AND SHEETS FOR MY LORD GYGAX!  INK FOR THE INK GOD, SHEETS FOR THE SHEET THRONE!"  The Dungeon Master is an impartial referee, and you are expected to honor that impartiality as much as he is expected to abide by it.  You and he are to deal honorably with each other, and if your past experiences have not gone this way then it is an issue with those people and not with the game.  You are, quite frankly, out of line.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 12:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;572261
Why are you acting as if you are a refuge from the Raids & Dungeons Forum of the official World of Warcraft message boards?  D&D is not the raiding scene, and the Dungeon Master is neither a mindless script running code nor a malevolent idiot god screaming "INK AND SHEETS FOR MY LORD GYGAX!  INK FOR THE INK GOD, SHEETS FOR THE SHEET THRONE!"  The Dungeon Master is an impartial referee, and you are expected to honor that impartiality as much as he is expected to abide by it.  You and he are to deal honorably with each other, and if your past experiences have not gone this way then it is an issue with those people and not with the game.  You are, quite frankly, out of line.
Excellence.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 17, 2012, 01:31:08 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572235
What constitutes a good DM anyway. (In your opinion.)


This is a pre-loaded question. It presumes that what would make a good GM is subjective, not objective. There are many things a Ref can do to make the game run better, just to start;

1. Make impartial rulings. If the GM favors his or her own campaign, and has some preconceived goals, or objectives, and a storyline to see those goals achieved, that is a fail. The game is about the players and what they choose. A good GM will make a ruling, especially when players are in a conflict, just to allow the game to proceed. Note that if the GM always rules for the same player (or npc), that's a fail as well. The GM should be working to allow everyone to participate in the best manner that they see fit. Overall, that really means less rulings, not more (So we should all be using less rules, not more!). The whole game should never hang on just one ruling, but a single characters life might. As a player just be prepared to move beyond that moment, if you are the one making poor or sub-optimal in-character decisions to deliberately throw the game.

2. Allow the players to bring their favorite character/skill/feat/weapon/magic to the game. Time and again I have seen players want to bring Prestige Classes, and unique character builds to a game only to be turned away by the GM. Why? Because the GM is unsure of how that character build will affect the balance of play. Players aren't helpful in this regard however, especially the ones that expend a whole week creating a single character that vastly overpowers,  or otherwise places into shadow, their peers, the rest of the players. The game isn't about being better than the rest of your team, it's about all working together as a team to beat the challenges the GM sets before you during the course of play.

I'll generally let players bring what they want. As GM though, I reserve the right to modify any module or adventure to rebalance it as I see fit, so that it is sufficiently interesting or challenging for the party as a whole. It may include adding some things that the supertweaked character can't handle. Don't get bent out of shape because I'm trying to create a few opportunities for the other players to step up or shine as well, because the game is about everyone (Not just Supertweak) having fun!

3. I don't care how much or how little prep a GM does. A GM needs to have a few random charts handy during the game just to throw in some elements that will make the game unpredictable and/or surprising. This has an added benefit of letting the ref or GM continue to be impartial while at the same time allowing various players an opportunity to participate and face a unique challenge.    

That's three things that will help make a good GM. Start with those, and then add more spice as needed, in order to make an entertaining game!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 17, 2012, 08:20:19 AM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572157
Off-Topic, but the UA get's a bad rap.  I've found dealing with the UA is about as problematic as reading and following the rules.  Not flaming, just being serious.  Played hardcore AD&D for over a decade, in all that time one person, ONE, actually rolled up scores sufficient to be a Cavalier Class Paladin.  The number of "legit" Cavaliers and Barbarians I can count on one hand.


Even using the generation method in UA that lets you pick the class first and roll 9d6 for your importanr attributes? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572159
The reason CharOpers boil with rage when somone say's core only is because core only will not balance the game. If you let people play Clerics and Druids then snarl at my Duskblade you'er not balancing the game you're just being a dick.


Your entitlement is showing.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572191
You are the DM, you control the world, you control the monsters, you control the NPC's. What you don't get to control your PC's characters.


Correct. DMs shouldn't make decisions for players. It is up to the DM to decide what options exist to decide on in the first place.



Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572197
You see like a 2e DM who's still butthurt that players no longer feel the need to suck his cock to not die from death no save.


Are you seeing anyone about this cock fixation?

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572207
Wow you are strawmannig so hard I think you might actualy shit straw

By RAW Monks are not proficient with their own hands, and by RAW if you have the prerequisites for a pretige class you can fucking take your prestige class. If you don't let people have them it only means CharOpers will play Druids. Why is it that grognards spazz out over prestige classes so hard.


If you put a group of all hardcore assburger charopers in a room, guess what their game would be like?

It wouldn't exist because they would all be too busy masturbating over their combos to actually game and no one would run anything anyhow.

Quote from: Kaelik;572228
Grognard rage so hard over PrCs (not possessive, no apostrophe) because grognards hate player empowerment.

While PrCs were not originally intended as a method of player empowerment, they quickly became one. Players got to say they were a member of a cool organization or had some cool features just by meeting some pre-reqs.

This angers grognard, who is fundamentally about DM wanking about greatness of campaign while pissing on players.


Player empowerment comes from the freedom to make decisions that matter and not get railroaded in some DMs wankfest story. Availability of classes, items, spells, or abilities has nothing to do with player empowerment.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572242
The thing is that on these boards "Good DMs" seem to be some sort of magical fairy that fixes all the rules, ensures fighters don't get overshadowed by the party wizard, and gives everyone free cake. People here seem to think the DM is bad if the game isn't 50% magical tea party, whereas I would not find such a game enjoyable.


It is the DMs job to make rulings that increase the enjoyment of the game for everyone. Sometimes this means saying yes, and sometimes this means saying no. If you would prefer play without such an individual there are options available for you to do so.

Quote from: StormBringer;572256


Once you go full retard, you never go back.


Ain't that the truth!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 08:26:30 AM
Quote from: GameDaddy;572286
Stuff


Since I brought it up, I might as well post my axioms for DMing. (I usually DM for my group.)
1 Open rolls for everything all the time. - As the DM I roll all my dice where players can see them, and never fudge any rolls. Sometimes characters die that's just part of the game.

2 Play what you want and deal with the consequences. - Players can make what ever characters they want, it's their responsibility to not suck not mine.

3 No Rails - when I write up a campaign I do it by stating up the "Red Team" of villains the PC's are fighting and then give them some sort of diabolical plan. How the PCs deal with the actions of team evil is up to them.

4 Encounters are always fair - I limit myself to enconters 2 CR above the partys ECL. "Boss" NPCs with class levels are the exception they can go up to ECL +4 but the PCs know in advance what they're up against so they should come into those fights with a plan.

5 After initative is rolled the person in the DM chair is not your friend. - I play monsters brutaly, pulling no punches. Monsters will use their SLAs in smart ways and take full advantage of their feats (especialy Power Attack). Many monsters have a alternate feat selections chosen by me.

6 Indulge your magical tea habit elsewhere. - If somthing not is covered by the rules or an edge case I'll aducate it as best I can. Never expect me to ignore a perfectly good rule.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;572342

If you put a group of all hardcore assburger charopers in a room, guess what their game would be like?


see above
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 17, 2012, 09:18:03 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;572342
Player empowerment comes from the freedom to make decisions that matter . . . Availability of classes, items, spells, or abilities has nothing to do with player empowerment.


So... your contention is that classes, items, spells, and abilities have nothing to do with making decisions that matter?

I have some bad news, you might be retarded.
Title: Interesting stuff
Post by: Bill on August 17, 2012, 09:32:49 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572343
Since I brought it up, I might as well post my axioms for DMing. (I usually DM for my group.)
1 Open rolls for everything all the time. - As the DM I roll all my dice where players can see them, and never fudge any rolls. Sometimes characters die that's just part of the game.
I do this all the time. I have not hidden a roll in over twenty years now.


2 Play what you want and deal with the consequences. - Players can make what ever characters they want, it's their responsibility to not suck not mine. Agree to let them play what they want as long as what they want is not detrimental to the game in some fundemental way.

3 No Rails - when I write up a campaign I do it by stating up the "Red Team" of villains the PC's are fighting and then give them some sort of diabolical plan. How the PCs deal with the actions of team evil is up to them.
Yes, Railroading is almost always terrible.


4 Encounters are always fair - I limit myself to enconters 2 CR above the partys ECL. "Boss" NPCs with class levels are the exception they can go up to ECL +4 but the PCs know in advance what they're up against so they should come into those fights with a plan.
I don't use challenge ratings because I consider them completely useless, but I agree that an encounter should be fair to a point. All battles are not winnable though. Just because a pc party wants to attack the Lich lord and his army head on, does not mean they automatically get a fair fight.

5 After initative is rolled the person in the DM chair is not your friend. - I play monsters brutaly, pulling no punches. Monsters will use their SLAs in smart ways and take full advantage of their feats (especialy Power Attack). Many monsters have a alternate feat selections chosen by me.
This is fine as long as your monsters act within their mental capacity, and in conjunction with the above concept of reasonably fair encounters. I don't like 'dumb' monsters acting in smart ways. I also sometimes change the capabilities of monsters because I can't stand metagaming.

6 Indulge your magical tea habit elsewhere. - If somthing not is covered by the rules or an edge case I'll aducate it as best I can. Never expect me to ignore a perfectly good rule.
I agree, but I also toss out bad rules. Can't stand the idea some people have that every rule is somehow 'good'   And what the heck is a magic tea habit? :)

see above


....
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 17, 2012, 09:38:13 AM
Quote from: Kaelik;572357
So... your contention is that classes, items, spells, and abilities have nothing to do with making decisions that matter?

I have some bad news, you might be retarded.


Anything outside of the shared world that a particular group plays in, doesn't matter.  The DM and the group sets up the parameters for that shared world and players agree to play within those parameters or not as they choose.

So classes, items, spells, etc. which are not a part of the campaign being played matter to decision making about as much as the price of tea in China.

Does that clear anything up?

Being published in and of itself does imply existence for a given campaign.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 09:53:05 AM
Quote from: Bill;572359
Agree to let them play what they want as long as what they want is not detrimental to the game in some fundemental way


What Axiom 2 means is that I don't coddle bad characters. If you bring a Monk or Fighter to my table don't expect any free stuff or artifact swords. The fact is the game is full of bad classes and I can't be bothered to fix all of them. If you want to play a sword guy that's what the Warblade is for. If you're new to 3.5 hard mode might I suggest the Druid class.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 17, 2012, 10:07:53 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572361
What Axiom 2 means is that I don't coddle bad characters. If you bring a Monk or Fighter to my table don't expect any free stuff or artifact swords. The fact is the game is full of bad classes and I can't be bothered to fix all of them. If you want to play a sword guy that's what the Warblade is for. If you're new to 3.5 hard mode might I suggest the Druid class.


Sounds like an ultimate fighting tournament for rules geeks. If everyone enjoys that mode of play then have at it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 17, 2012, 10:08:59 AM
What the fuck is a magical tea party.

Because I guess it sounds pretty awesome?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 17, 2012, 10:11:24 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;572360
Anything outside of the shared world that a particular group plays in, doesn't matter.  The DM and the group sets up the parameters for that shared world and players agree to play within those parameters or not as they choose.

So classes, items, spells, etc. which are not a part of the campaign being played matter to decision making about as much as the price of tea in China.

Does that clear anything up?

Being published in and of itself does imply existence for a given campaign.


No one is saying that something being published implies existence.

The point is precisely that whether or not Wizards exist in a given campaign setting drastically changes what decisions can and cannot be made by the players.

If Wall of Stone exists, there are a lot of choices that players can make that they can't make if Wall of Stone doesn't exist.

The availability of classes, items, spells, and abilities is the very first thing that effects your decisions that matter, and therefore player empowerment.

If you want to make decisions, what decisions you can and cannot make is literally the first and most important factor.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 17, 2012, 10:13:44 AM
This thread is near perfection. Two ugly extremist sides in a knockdown drag out that shows off the worst therpgsite and the wider online world has to offer.

I think I'll bookmark it as an example for why staying away from places like this is a good idea.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 10:24:42 AM
Quote from: RandallS;572166
... CRPGs never really interested me as they seemed extremely limiting compared to playing under a human GM and far too combat oriented -- I but one, play an hour or two, get bored and never play it again.


Just curious, but same story with Zork, Myst, etc?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 10:28:07 AM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572183

IIRC, somewhere in 3.0 the rulebooks did say PRCs were optional and might require additional requirements from the GM, not sure if that survived through to 3.5 and PF.


Seeing as Pathfinder basically shuttled the PRCs off to the retirement home, you're probably safe to exclude it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 17, 2012, 10:36:30 AM
Player empowerment is a dumb idea anyway.

There, I said it. I mean, it sounds really cool! Player empowerment! Are you against player empowerment? Sounds like you're a total douchebag, fellow!

However, it's just coopting serious terminology for stupid petty theory wars. Like Luke Crane's "abused player syndrome". You fucks are not fighting for getting a right to vote. Or having a job. You're fighting for the right to be crybabies about not being allowed stuff.

It throws out the idea that you're supposed to play with your friends and look for what's fun for everyone in the group by fucking discussing it as grown up people. Instead, it insists that you should just use rules to browbeat everyone else into the style you like. It's promoting a selfish, toxic mode of gaming.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 10:42:18 AM
Since I'm here to help.
Powertripping DM got you down, can't keep up with CharOpers, worry not because LM is here to help. Folowing this short guide even the most inxpirenced player can know what it's like to be optimized

Lord Mistborn's Druid guide for new players.

Just writing Druid on your character sheet makes you as optimized as half the minmaxer builds ever writen so fucking be a druid. Wolves, Lions, Tigers, and Bears are all awesome, turn into them with Wildshape and get one of them as your Animal Companion. Feats, you're fucking Druid you only need one feat that fucking Natural Spell, what's that you want more feats try fucking Power Attack and Augment Summoning. Prestige Classes fuck that, you don't need any of that shit, you're a Druid. You also get Druid spells It dosen't matter what spells you prepare because you can fucking spontaneously cast Summon Natures Ally so when in doubt just fucking summon some more Bears.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 17, 2012, 10:44:23 AM
Quote from: Kaelik;572370

If you want to make decisions, what decisions you can and cannot make is literally the first and most important factor.


Can you decide to just fly somewhere, Superman style rather than walk or use an existing mode of transport?

If not, does being denied this option make you feel disempowered?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 10:49:06 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572168
The Duskblade is a Fighter/Mage analog. It's a funtional class nothing to write home about. As a fan of Gish Builds (Warrior/Spellcaster combinations) I often bring Duskblades to the table to avoid scaring off new dm's with the sort of crazy builds you need to be a viable Gish in 3e

If someone wants to play something that may not fit in your world try taking to him like an adult. Sometimes you can find a way to fit stuf in, but I can understand not allowing in some of the more "exotic" 3e stuff (Psionics, Incarnium, Tome of Magic). Though your world must be pretty dull if you can't even fit the Shadowdancer into it.

and of corse WotC prints splats for the $ it's just that the splats are not any less balaced than the core game


Build.

Build.

This cunt plays a "build".

Feh. Build.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 17, 2012, 10:53:39 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572381
Since I'm here to help... Powertripping DM got you down? Can't keep up with CharOppers? Worry not, because LM is here to help. If they follow this short guide, even the most inexperienced player can know what it's like to be optimized.

Lord Mistborn's Druid guide for new players.

Just writing "Druid" on your character sheet makes you as optimized as half the minmaxer builds ever writen so fucking be a druid. Wolves, lions, tigers you don't need a comma before "and" and bears none of these are proper names, come the fuck on are all awesome, turn into them with Wildshape and get one of them as your Animal Companion. Feats? You're a fucking Druid. You only need one feat - that is, fucking Natural Spell. What's that? You want more feats? Try fucking Power Attack and Augment Summoning. Prestige Classes? Fuck that, you don't need any of that shit, you're a Druid. You also get Druid spells. It doesn't matter what spells you prepare, because you can fucking spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally so when in doubt just fucking summon some more bears.

I'd give you about a D for your essay, and I'm not even a native English speaker, I hope that burns.

Props for spelling spontaneously correctly, though. That's one thing to be happy about.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 11:04:26 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572361
What Axiom 2 means is that I don't coddle bad characters. If you bring a Monk or Fighter to my table don't expect any free stuff or artifact swords. The fact is the game is full of bad classes and I can't be bothered to fix all of them. If you want to play a sword guy that's what the Warblade is for. If you're new to 3.5 hard mode might I suggest the Druid class.


In my opinion, you're outing yourself as an asshole with this last statement alone.  What if I'm new to 3.5, have no desire to read all the books, etc, and have no desire to play a namby-pamby tree lover?

Your 'game' seems to me to be a meta-game of 'who can build the best character' and/or/possibly 'who can find the most powerful obscure rules'.

That's not 'badwrongfun' but it is precisely something that has been identified as antisocial by many posters in this thread.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 11:05:24 AM
Quote from: gleichman;572371
This thread is near perfection. Two ugly extremist sides in a knockdown drag out that shows off the worst therpgsite and the wider online world has to offer.

I think I'll bookmark it as an example for why staying away from places like this is a good idea.
Please take your own advice.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 11:05:35 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572385
Build.

Build.

This cunt plays a "build".

Feh. Build.


Fuck you, you basket-weaving retard. Unless you pick your class, race, feats, spells and skills out of a hat, you're playing a fucking build. I can't belive we are having this fucking conversation. CharOp builds are not about being the best. Wizard, Cleric, or Druid for all 20 levels do that just fine. CharOp is about doing something intresting and not geting fucked by 3.5 for it. If somone wants to play a sword and board fighter at my table I will inform him that his choice is suboptimal. If he insits though I will help him be make the best damn sword and board fighter he can be because that's what PracOp is all about
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 11:06:56 AM
Quote from: vytzka;572378
Player empowerment is a dumb idea anyway.

Look, we're all adults, and we're all coming together to play a game.

We probably all want different things out of the game.  There are a lot of commonalities, sure, but different people enjoy different things to different extents.  

In one mode of play, the DM tries to accomodate what everyone wants.  The DM decides what would be interesting for the party to do and tries to prepare accordingly.

In another mode of play, the players try to let the DM know the types of things they're interested in doing.  They try to drive the action and let the DM respond in an appropriate way.  

In the first mode of play, the DM might incude winged boots in the next dungeon.  

In the second, the players find out what it takes to fly.  They then decide how accomplishing that goal would work.  Maybe they want boots of flying, or maybe they want to start learning magic to cast wizard spells, or maybe they decide that they think having a griffon mount is the way to go, and they start looking for one.  

Bad DMs just say 'flying is stupid.  You can't do that.'  

Now, if you have a good DM, it's probably okay that to give them a chance to 'accomodate your desires' as a player, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to try to get the things you want.  

In real life, if I want a hamburger, I go get one.  In a game that has fantastic elements, the characters should be able to go get the things they want - as long as they're prepared to overcome the obstacles in the way.  Being able to do what you want doesn't mean that you won't be challenged - it just means that you're deciding what you want to accomplish BEFORE you learn what the challenges are.  

I think that style of play is superior, both as a DM and a player.  It's also harder, because the DM could conceivably be asked to be prepared for ANYTHING at ANY TIME.  That's a tall order - but if you can pull it off, that's great.  And if you're good about finding out what the players are thinking about doing at least a week ahead of time, you're likely able to plan accordingly - but your campaign is, by definition, 'off the rails'.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 11:09:10 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572390
Fuck you, you basket-weaving retard. Unless you pick your class, race, feats, spells and skills out of a hat, you're playing a fucking build. I can't belive we are having this fucking conversation. CharOp builds are not about being the best' Wizard, Cleric, or Druid for all 20 levels do that just fine. CharOp is about doing something intresting and not geting fucked by 3.5 for it. If somone wants to play a sword and board fighter at my table I will inform him that his choice is suboptimal. If he insits though I will help be make the best damn sword and board fighter he be because that's what PracOp is all about


Lol.

You're autistic.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 11:10:47 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572381
You also get Druid spells It dosen't matter what spells you prepare because you can fucking spontaneously cast Summon Natures Ally so when in doubt just fucking summon some more Bears.


I see.  So you're trying to gain entrance to a castle to speak with the local robber baron.  The guard doesn't like you and doesn't want to let you in.  You summon more bears.

Not seeing how that helps.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 11:12:39 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572394
Lol.

You're autistic.


Out of curiosity do you actually contribute to this form, because I haven't seen any non-troll posts from you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 11:14:54 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572397
Out of curiosity do you actually contribute to this form, because I haven't seen any non-troll posts from you.


I called you a "cunt" didn't I?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 17, 2012, 11:15:46 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572395
I see.  So you're trying to gain entrance to a castle to speak with the local robber baron.  The guard doesn't like you and doesn't want to let you in.  You summon more bears.

Not seeing how that helps.


I think some people never roleplay, and just kill stuff.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 17, 2012, 11:15:48 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572387
In my opinion, you're outing yourself as an asshole with this last statement alone.  What if I'm new to 3.5, have no desire to read all the books, etc, and have no desire to play a namby-pamby tree lover?

Your 'game' seems to me to be a meta-game of 'who can build the best character' and/or/possibly 'who can find the most powerful obscure rules'.

That's not 'badwrongfun' but it is precisely something that has been identified as antisocial by many posters in this thread.


Yup. A roleplaying game to many is more than just fapping over the mechanical capabilities of constructs in a rules system. You duly notified everyone that roleplaying a character in your campaign without obsessive rulesfuckery is a one way ticket to failtown.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 17, 2012, 11:16:33 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572373
Just curious, but same story with Zork, Myst, etc?


I generally like good interactive fiction (which is what Zork, Myst, etc. are, IMHO). However, I don't consider interactive fiction to be a RPG.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 11:19:30 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572390
Fuck you, you basket-weaving retard. Unless you pick your class, race, feats, spells and skills out of a hat, you're playing a fucking build.


That doesn't match my definition of the word.  For me, it isn't a 'build' unless it is planned out in advance.  Another key indicator of it being a 'build' is when it was planned and/or reviewed by others.

The focus shifts away from 'Ragnar the Fighter' to F3/DwD5/R7.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572390
CharOp builds are not about being the best.


I respectfully submit that you are in the minority with this opinion.  If you're not 'the best', then you are not 'optimized' which is the latter part of 'CharOp'.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572390
Wizard, Cleric, or Druid for all 20 levels do that just fine. CharOp is about doing something intresting and not geting fucked by 3.5 for it. If somone wants to play a sword and board fighter at my table I will inform him that his choice is suboptimal. If he insits though I will help him be make the best damn sword and board fighter he can be because that's what PracOp is all about


Being statistically the best is a different animal than being the most fun.  This, I believe, is the gap.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 17, 2012, 11:19:32 AM
Quote from: vytzka;572368
What the fuck is a magical tea party.

Because I guess it sounds pretty awesome?


It's when you bring a character, magic, a character build, or new equipment into the game that isn't already covered by the rules... Sometimes this even requires the GM to whip up some new game mechanics to deal with the new items/concepts. It's one of my favorites as a GM, but can be tricky as some players don't deal too well with stuff that isn't already automatically covered by the rules.

see also...

0D&D

...and

Warlock

...and

The Fantasy Trip

If I wanted a wargame or plain fighting game, I would go back to the hexboard and counter wargames of the 70's since they mostly had minimal rules so that a game could actually be finished in a reasonable time. The exception to this of course, being SPI's Next War. Simple in concept, WWIII in Europe, but with 3,000 counters, a Megamap that requires a private games room, and so many rules exceptions we gave up trying to play.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 11:23:59 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572404
That doesn't match my definition of the word.  For me, it isn't a 'build' unless it is planned out in advance.  Another key indicator of it being a 'build' is when it was planned and/or reviewed by others.

He also doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that I play a version of D&D that doesn't include Feats, Skills or PrCs, and therefore do not "build" a character when I sit down to play.

His single-minded pursuit of proving this thread's premise correct leads me to believe that he's either an aspie, a troll, or some combination of the two.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 17, 2012, 11:27:49 AM
Quote from: vytzka;572378
Player empowerment is a dumb idea anyway.

...

You fucks are not fighting for getting a right to vote. Or having a job. You're fighting for the right to be crybabies about not being allowed stuff.

It throws out the idea that you're supposed to play with your friends and look for what's fun for everyone in the group by fucking discussing it as grown up people. Instead, it insists that you should just use rules to browbeat everyone else into the style you like. It's promoting a selfish, toxic mode of gaming.

1) The fact that something is less important that being able to vote or eat does not mean that it has no importance whatsoever. No one is claiming that it is the most important thing, merely an aspect to consider when designing a game.

2) You are fundamentally missing the issue. No one is fighting for the right to complain about not being allowed things. We just don't play in games with dumbasses like you who throw fits at the thought of players getting to do what we want.

The purpose of the term is to describe the difference between the thing we want, which is making meaningful choices, and how ability availability changes what choices we can make, and the thing you want. In your case, apparently the thing you want is to be an annoying troll.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;572383
Can you decide to just fly somewhere, Superman style rather than walk or use an existing mode of transport?

If not, does being denied this option make you feel disempowered?

I fundamentally less empowered than I would be if I could fly. This is obviously factually true in a way that should be obvious.

My decisions in an alternate universe where I can fly are literally every single choice I have right now plus all the choices I could make if I could fly.

Therefore, obviously, whether or not I can fly is a very important question in what decisions I can make.

Quote from: mcbobbo;572395
I see.  So you're trying to gain entrance to a castle to speak with the local robber baron.  The guard doesn't like you and doesn't want to let you in.  You summon more bears.

Not seeing how that helps.

Well, you can actually some lots of different things. So for example, depending on your level, you can summon an earth elemental to earthglide inside and deliver a message to the king, you can summon a thoqqua to burrow a whole in the wall for you to get inside, you can summon a Janni to Ethereal Jaunt you inside or cast invisibility so you can sneak inside. Ect.

Lots of cool things you can do to talk to the local baron regardless of what spells you used.

Hey, lots of cool things you can do because a particular set of spells exist that give you choices you couldn't make if you weren't empowered by it's existence with those choices.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 17, 2012, 11:42:32 AM
Quote from: Kaelik;572413
I fundamentally less empowered than I would be if I could fly. This is obviously factually true in a way that should be obvious.


Duh!!!  Of course.

That wasn't the question. The question was: does not being able to fly make you feel disempowered?

Quote from: Kaelik;572413

My decisions in an alternate universe where I can fly are literally every single choice I have right now plus all the choices I could make if I could fly.

Therefore, obviously, whether or not I can fly is a very important question in what decisions I can make..


We are not discussing alternate universes. In this analogy, our world that we actually live in, represents a particular campaign. The contents of the entire published game library represents a multitude of alternate universes.


So in a given campaign, not having ability X is the same level of disempowerment as not being able to fly in our world.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 11:44:30 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572409
He also doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that I play a version of D&D that doesn't include Feats, Skills or PrCs, and therefore do not "build" a character when I sit down to play.

His single-minded pursuit of proving this thread's premise correct leads me to believe that he's either an aspie, a troll, or some combination of the two.
The real question is:  can the aspietroll regenerate damage from fire or acid?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 17, 2012, 11:49:42 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;572420
We are not discussing alternate universes. In this analogy, our world that we actually live in, represents a particular campaign. The contents of the entire published game library represents a multitude of alternate universes.


So in a given campaign, not having ability X is the same level of disempowerment as not being able to fly in our world.


Fine then, in your campaign setting, I would choose to gather with some friends and play a game in which I could play a Druid/Wizard instead of undertaking adventures or otherwise participating in your campaign world, because your campaign world sounds pretty sucky.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 11:52:58 AM
Quote from: Kaelik;572413
1) The fact that something is less important that being able to vote or eat does not mean that it has no importance whatsoever. No one is claiming that it is the most important thing, merely an aspect to consider when designing a game.

2) You are fundamentally missing the issue. No one is fighting for the right to complain about not being allowed things. We just don't play in games with dumbasses like you who throw fits at the thought of players getting to do what we want.

The purpose of the term is to describe the difference between the thing we want, which is making meaningful choices, and how ability availability changes what choices we can make, and the thing you want. In your case, apparently the thing you want is to be an annoying troll.


Actually....your playstyle is all about utilizing your super-aspie-ruleswank powers to bully the other players at your table.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would surmise that you are the type who finds fellow gamers via online communities, and is constantly drifting from table to table, eventually becoming unwelcome at all of them.

Kind of reminds me of an excerpt from a Ben Folds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1R64-ZWVoM) song:

Quote from: Ben Folds;572413

Citing artistic differences the band broke up in may
and in June reformed without me...and they got a different name
Nuked another grandma's apple pie and hung my head in shame


I'll bet that the thought of interacting with people n a manner that isn't an autistic rules mastery arms race gives you hives.

See...you're exactly the kind of cat this thread is about. Swinging around a big number cock at the game table grants you the illusion of accomplishment, without actually having to engage in the kind of risk that leads to REAL accomplishments. And that's what makes you the kind of asshole that 3.x appeals to.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 11:54:00 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;572421
The real question is:  can the aspietroll regenerate damage from fire or acid?

You're better than that joke, John.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 17, 2012, 12:08:27 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;572383
Can you decide to just fly somewhere, Superman style rather than walk or use an existing mode of transport?

If not, does being denied this option make you feel disempowered?


Have you seen the Wizard vs. Fighter thread?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
If 'Character Optimization' was simply about 'building the best character', there would only be one character.  

Eventually a combination of 'unbeatable' would be put together and everyone who wants to be 'the best' would play that one build.  

That is not what character optimization is about.  

It is about choosing a theme, then advancing that theme to the logical limits.

If you want to be a 'Robin Hood' type character EVEN IF THAT IS A SUB-OPTIMAL CHOICE, you can Optimze it.  For example, if you begin with the idea of being a ranged martial character, there are certain feats, certain equipment and certain class combinations that work better than others.  

There is a big difference between a Fighter 5 Archer and a Ranger 3/Ftr 1/Sor 1.  There is a big difference between an archer that uses a crossbow versus one that uses a composite-longbow that takes advantage of exceptional strength.  

The idea of optimization is to help you realize your THEME the most effective way possible, even if your theme is weak to begin with.  Essentially, the 'most obvious' route to achieve your theme is usually the least effective.  Some combination of classes/items/feats/skills will be better than others.  

All players optimize to some extent.  If you're playing Robin Hood, you don't randomly roll for what weapon you'll use.  You pick a bow and you invest resources into becoming good at using that bow.  

The people that seem to complain about Character Optimization seem to come at it from one of two directions.  They either claim that making effective characters is SOMEHOW bad, even though everyone does it, and the most fun characters are the ones that have major flaws (like the Fighter with Strength 4 and an 18 Intelligence) OR they accept that optimization is fine until it goes beyond a certain threshhold that they consider acceptable.  Usually this is couched in some kind of 'role-playing' arguement - ie, a cleric wouldn't want to transform into a demon to accomplish his goals even if he is a cleric of an evil god because it violates his principles, even if it doesn't.  

If you accept that there are different ways of playing a theme, and some are more effective than others at achieving that theme, you are accepting Character Optimization.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 12:23:29 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572440
If 'Character Optimization' was simply about 'building the best character', there would only be one character.  

Eventually a combination of 'unbeatable' would be put together and everyone who wants to be 'the best' would play that one build.  

That is not what character optimization is about.  

It is about choosing a theme, then advancing that theme to the logical limits.


I don't think that 'building the best character along a theme' is significantly different, and rather assumed that it would be included.  I'm not going so far out in hyperbole-land as to assume everyone plays the same build.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;572440

There is a big difference between a Fighter 5 Archer and a Ranger 3/Ftr 1/Sor 1.


Yeah, from my view one is a character that could plausibly exist and another is a metagame construct that only exists to fuel a build.

I can imagine Ragnar, starting as a Fighter, leveling as a Fighter as he learns his dungeoneering trade.

I cannot imagine Ragnar defending the woods for a while, then eschewing his natural upbringing for rigid training at a military school - just enough to get the basics, mind you - and THEN dumping all that combat training to practice SORCERY for fuck's sake.

The former is a plausible person, while the latter almost certainly is not.  And even if you could come up with a wild and weaving backstory to generate such a character for one build, can you genuinely do it for every build?  While retaining any creative credibility?


Quote from: deadDMwalking;572440

If you accept that there are different ways of playing a theme, and some are more effective than others at achieving that theme, you are accepting Character Optimization.


Um, I'm sorry, but no.  For example, a Ranger might be better than a Fighter at being Robin Hood.  Neither choice would be good at going for Merlin.  This can be done with systems that have no Feats at all, and without multiclassing, and does not meet any reasonable criteria for 'CharOp'.  Because if you whittle the phrase down that far, there's simply no meaning left and we're forced to select another word to describe the observation.

Unless I suppose you mean to invalidate the observation?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 12:33:49 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572440
a cleric wouldn't want to transform into a demon to accomplish his goals even if he is a cleric of an evil god because it violates his principles, even if it doesn't.  


...and this right here is the problem with ideological warriors, pure intellectual dishonesty.  That's wasn't the main argument leveled against the Arrow Demon Cleric, it wasn't even the main roleplaying argument leveled against the Arrow Demon Cleric.

Take what actually was argued, ignore it completely, fill in something that fits your argument and then casually toss it off as a fact.  Textbook Internet 101 Echo-chamber propaganda creation.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 12:42:30 PM
I ran a game with a player who had a character that was a Fighter 2/ Rogue 5/Invisible blade 3/ Occult Slayer 5. Every cross classing decision that was made was based on what was happening in the campaign. Except for the two level fighter dip. His character started the game with the customary 2 levels in fighter (which is all the class is good for in 3rd).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 12:48:51 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572448


Yeah, from my view one is a character that could plausibly exist and another is a metagame construct that only exists to fuel a build.

I can imagine Ragnar, starting as a Fighter, leveling as a Fighter as he learns his dungeoneering trade.

I cannot imagine Ragnar defending the woods for a while, then eschewing his natural upbringing for rigid training at a military school - just enough to get the basics, mind you - and THEN dumping all that combat training to practice SORCERY for fuck's sake.

The former is a plausible person, while the latter almost certainly is not.  And even if you could come up with a wild and weaving backstory to generate such a character for one build, can you genuinely do it for every build?  While retaining any creative credibility?



+1 billion.  This is a chief turn off for me.  The game shifts from becoming a role-playing game where you build your character up within the campaign story, into a strictly numbers math game to eek out the most bonuses in combat, regardless if it made sense or not.

No thanks.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 12:51:39 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572448
I cannot imagine Ragnar defending the woods for a while, then eschewing his natural upbringing for rigid training at a military school - just enough to get the basics, mind you - and THEN dumping all that combat training to practice SORCERY for fuck's sake.


And people here tell me that I lack imagination!

Now, when I play with people, I do expect them to justify their decisions.  But it's not particularly hard.  If Ragnar is a real person and he's seen someone cast a spell like true strike, he might want to learn how to do that.  Just like if I saw someone doing a Sudoku puzzle, I might try to learn how to do that.  

Now how do you 'awaken your sorcererous potential'?  That's probably a question for each campaign to answer, but if everyone has SOME potential, there's nothing wrong with trying to develop that.  

Nor do I have a problem with a Ranger/Fighter hybrid.  They are similar classes, but one involves more martial focus and the other a more skilled focus.  Since development is somewhat abstract, there's no problem with Ragnar working on being tough and his weapon training and then going back to working on his skills and his emphasis on a particular creature's habits.  

So sure.  If you're the DM you can say 'you can't play a character with multiple classes'.  I might or might not play. Because if I'm trying to build a particular character, being told that I can't play it is kind of being a dick DM.  And not every character type is easily made with a single-class.  Fighter/Wizard type characters are certainly a fantasy trope, and they're the most difficult to make effectively in D&D - but with some 'optimization' there are some versions that don't totally suck.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 17, 2012, 01:00:52 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572343
.

3 No Rails - when I write up a campaign I do it by stating up the "Red Team" of villains the PC's are fighting and then give them some sort of diabolical plan. How the PCs deal with the actions of team evil is up to them.

No rails indeed...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 01:04:39 PM
I think I see the problem. You guy see classes as what they are in non-3e fundamental defining aspect of your character. In 3e I find it's best to think of classes and prestige classes as more like Lego bricks you use to make the character you want to play.

What got me into minmaxing is playing Fighter/Wizards in 3e. Even a simple 3.5 gish is somthing like Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Eldritch Knight X and even then you're a spell level behind and still suck at fighting.

Quote from: Planet Algol;572467
No rails indeed...


As Korosh the Frozen Soul's horde of orcs descends on the peaceful villagers the PCs of course always have the option of doing something other than working to stop them. If they didn't want to fight orcs though maybe they should have said something when I was pitching the campaign and saved me alot of time writing statblockes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 01:11:02 PM
@DeadDM. You were doing pretty well until mentioning the Demon Cleric and showing that ridiculous Ranger and trying to justify it with a straight face. Ranger/Sorcerer? Fighter/Sorcerer? Sure but no amount of silly explanation gets a Fighter in that mix if you're talking about an organically grown character.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 01:12:53 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572469
I think I see the problem. You guy see classes as what they are in non-3e fundamental defining aspect of your character. In 3e I find it's best to think of classes and prestige classes as more like Lego bricks you use to make the character you want to play.

*burp*

Sorry. I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 01:16:49 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572469
I think I see the problem. You guy see classes as what they are in non-3e fundamental defining aspect of your character. In 3e I find it's best to think of classes and prestige classes as more like Lego bricks you use to make the character you want to play.

What got me into minmaxing is playing Fighter/Wizards in 3e. Even a simple 3.5 gish is somthing like Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Eldritch Knight X and even then you're a spell level behind and still suck at fighting.



As Korosh the Frozen Soul's horde of orcs descends on the peaceful villagers the PCs of course always have the option of doing something other than working to stop them. If they didn't want to fight orcs though maybe they should have said something when I was pitching the campaign and saved me alot of time writing statblockes.
So it is Magic the Gathering deckbuilding to you and not a roleplaying game. Least I know exactly where you stand, thanks but no thanks.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 17, 2012, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572458
And people here tell me that I lack imagination!

Now, when I play with people, I do expect them to justify their decisions.  But it's not particularly hard.  If Ragnar is a real person and he's seen someone cast a spell like true strike, he might want to learn how to do that.  Just like if I saw someone doing a Sudoku puzzle, I might try to learn how to do that.  

Now how do you 'awaken your sorcererous potential'?  That's probably a question for each campaign to answer, but if everyone has SOME potential, there's nothing wrong with trying to develop that.  

Nor do I have a problem with a Ranger/Fighter hybrid.  They are similar classes, but one involves more martial focus and the other a more skilled focus.  Since development is somewhat abstract, there's no problem with Ragnar working on being tough and his weapon training and then going back to working on his skills and his emphasis on a particular creature's habits.  

So sure.  If you're the DM you can say 'you can't play a character with multiple classes'.  I might or might not play. Because if I'm trying to build a particular character, being told that I can't play it is kind of being a dick DM.  And not every character type is easily made with a single-class.  Fighter/Wizard type characters are certainly a fantasy trope, and they're the most difficult to make effectively in D&D - but with some 'optimization' there are some versions that don't totally suck.


I prefer players to use optimization to boost 'weak' characters up to 'effective'

An optimized fighter with a quarterstaff might be close to a regular fighter with a greatsword or reach weapon in effectiveness.

But piling on bonuses to a fighter that is allready effective is just overkill.

It's the over the top 'uber builds' that perplex me.
Easy to construct, sooooo boring to play. What's the point?

Can't have a Charismatic Barbarian!  DUMP STAT!!!!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 01:18:57 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572469
I think I see the problem. You guy see classes as what they are in non-3e fundamental defining aspect of your character. In 3e I find it's best to think of classes and prestige classes as more like Lego bricks you use to make the character you want to play.

What got me into minmaxing is playing Fighter/Wizards in 3e. Even a simple 3.5 gish is somthing like Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Eldritch Knight X and even then you're a spell level behind and still suck at fighting.

As Korosh the Frozen Soul's horde of orcs descends on the peaceful villagers the PCs of course always have the option of doing something other than working to stop them. If they didn't want to fight orcs though maybe they should have said something when I was pitching the campaign and saved me alot of time writing statblockes.


Yep. Troll.

Nobody is THAT perfect an asshole.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 01:19:35 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572471
@DeadDM. You were doing pretty well until mentioning the Demon Cleric and showing that ridiculous Ranger and trying to justify it with a straight face. Ranger/Sorcerer? Fighter/Sorcerer? Sure but no amount of silly explanation gets a Fighter in that mix if you're talking about an organically grown character.


I don't know Lord Mistborn, but I think he's right.  

A class isn't necessarily a defining characteristic.  

Rather than saying 'I'm a Fighter' or 'I'm a Ranger', there's nothing wrong with saying "I'm Hokar, last of my tribe.  My bow, guided by my ancestral spirits, is yours to command".

If I want to make a character like Hokar, a straight Fighter or a straight Ranger might not work.  I happened to like the scene in Princess Bride where Inigo asks his father to guide his blade.  Building a class off that concept is cool.  

Now, there's always the issue of making a character of the appropriate POWER level for the campaign.  Hokar might not work as a 1st level character, because to fulfill the concept he might need 'pieces' of too many classes.  But if the campaign starts at 3rd level, there's no reason he can't be included.  In this case, while mechanically he's composed of three different pieces, thematically, they're each aspects of his theme that blend together.  

Rather than call it a Fighter 1/Ranger 1/Sorcerer 1, you could call it 'Ancestral Archer 3', but why would you?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 01:20:43 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572473
*burp*

Sorry. I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.


Fuck it Stomwind Fallcy time

Quote from: Tempest Stormwind

I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but   maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
 
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
 Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
 
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
 
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
 Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
 
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's   gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules   and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result.   Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave   as if he was someone else.
 A person can act while  understanding the rules, and can build something  powerful while still  handling an effective character. There is nothing  in the game --  mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you  participate in the  other.
 
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or  is participating in a  playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying)  because he is an  optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind  Fallacy.
 
By playing D&D, you opt in to an  agreement of sorts -- the rules  describe the world you live in,  including yourself. To get the most out  of those rules, in the same way  you would get the most out of yourself,  you must optimize in some  respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it  already, you just don't  like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing  or splatbooks to  optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game,  you also agree  to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and  is independent  of the rules.
 
And no, this isn't dependent on  edition, or even what roleplaying game  you're doing. If you are playing  a roleplaying game with any form of  rules or regulation, this fallacy  can apply. The only difference is the  nature of the optimization (based  on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat  optimizes differently than d20) or  the flavor of the roleplay (based on  the setting; Exalted feels  different from Cthulu).
 
Conclusion: D&D, like it  or not, has elements of both optimization  AND roleplay in it. Any game  that involves rules has optimization, and  any role-playing game has  roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
 
They go  hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name  of all  that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in  the  meantime.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 01:20:54 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572474
So it is Magic the Gathering deckbuilding to you and not a roleplaying game. Least I know exactly where you stand, thanks but no thanks.

He's pushing our buttons deliberately.

You can tell because he never once acknowledges that the people who support this thread don't play 3.x, and also his ideas enbody the very premise of this thread perfectly.

At least I have the decency to openly call people rape babies, instead of engaging in subterfuge.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 17, 2012, 01:23:32 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572478
I don't know Lord Mistborn, but I think he's right.  

A class isn't necessarily a defining characteristic.  

Rather than saying 'I'm a Fighter' or 'I'm a Ranger', there's nothing wrong with saying "I'm Hokar, last of my tribe.  My bow, guided by my ancestral spirits, is yours to command".

If I want to make a character like Hokar, a straight Fighter or a straight Ranger might not work.  I happened to like the scene in Princess Bride where Inigo asks his father to guide his blade.  Building a class off that concept is cool.  

Now, there's always the issue of making a character of the appropriate POWER level for the campaign.  Hokar might not work as a 1st level character, because to fulfill the concept he might need 'pieces' of too many classes.  But if the campaign starts at 3rd level, there's no reason he can't be included.  In this case, while mechanically he's composed of three different pieces, thematically, they're each aspects of his theme that blend together.  

Rather than call it a Fighter 1/Ranger 1/Sorcerer 1, you could call it 'Ancestral Archer 3', but why would you?


There is a huge difference between a regular multiclass character, and a powergamed dipping machine.

We all know that most players with powergamed multiclass builds are not following a theme. They are creating a build they want to try out, and pretending it was roleplay based. In the worst cases, they just want to be uber, or show off their build.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 17, 2012, 01:29:51 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572440


The people that seem to complain about Character Optimization seem to come at it from one of two directions.  They either claim that making effective characters is SOMEHOW bad, even though everyone does it, and the most fun characters are the ones that have major flaws (like the Fighter with Strength 4 and an 18 Intelligence) OR they accept that optimization is fine until it goes beyond a certain threshhold that they consider acceptable.  Usually this is couched in some kind of 'role-playing' arguement - ie, a cleric wouldn't want to transform into a demon to accomplish his goals even if he is a cleric of an evil god because it violates his principles, even if it doesn't.  

If you accept that there are different ways of playing a theme, and some are more effective than others at achieving that theme, you are accepting Character Optimization.


Well, I have said before that I have run plenty of games for optimizers and I personally have no problem with people playing that way if that is what they like...I can even see the fun of trying to work and beat the system so to speak. But, while I am perfectly familiar with the stormwind fallacy, I don't think it is terribly persuasive. My experience is optimizers can certainly role play characters, but by definition they only play otpimized builds. While optimizers like to argue that optiminal choices are realistic character decisions, I rarely see people choosing the most optimal path in real life. In my experience optimization can make for interesting combats but usually leads to less interesting characters. Also every optimizer I have played with, eventually tells me the fun for them comes from beating the system, not realizing a character concept. Creating a character that can throw an ungodly amount of knives a round isn't realizing a character concept, its min/maxing. And with the net, it frankly isn't that hard to do.

If I have a group of players who are all optimizers, the game goes fine. I can have fun as a GM and they can have fun as players. But most players are not optimizers. And when you have a mixed group, and one side sees the game as a contest and the other doesn't, it does typically lead to problems.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 01:30:28 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572458
If Ragnar is a real person and he's seen someone cast a spell like true strike, he might want to learn how to do that.  Just like if I saw someone doing a Sudoku puzzle, I might try to learn how to do that.  


You just compared a skill, or MAYBE a feat, to an occupation.  Just because I want to do Sudoku puzzles, this does not mean I am going to go get a four year degree in game design.  Those are not even on the same planet.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;572458
Now how do you 'awaken your sorcererous potential'?  That's probably a question for each campaign to answer, but if everyone has SOME potential, there's nothing wrong with trying to develop that.  


I'd say 'wanting to actually be a sorcerer' is probably a pre-requisite.  And having access to 'True Strike' is not enough to make an occupational decision in any world with realism.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;572458

So sure.  If you're the DM you can say 'you can't play a character with multiple classes'.  I might or might not play. Because if I'm trying to build a particular character, being told that I can't play it is kind of being a dick DM.  And not every character type is easily made with a single-class.  Fighter/Wizard type characters are certainly a fantasy trope, and they're the most difficult to make effectively in D&D - but with some 'optimization' there are some versions that don't totally suck.


You just moved from 'builds do not often pass a believability test' to 'you cannot ever multiclass'.  Did you do so with a straight face, because they have a term for this on the internet, and I'm pretty certain you know the one I mean...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 01:31:27 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572480
He's pushing our buttons deliberately.

You can tell because he never once acknowledges that the people who support this thread don't play 3.x, and also his ideas enbody the very premise of this thread perfectly.

At least I have the decency to openly call people rape babies, instead of engaging in subterfuge.


I like that you're up front Declan. Sometimes it get under my skin but it's honest. Actually I want to thank DeadDM, Mistborn, and MGuy for showing me exactly how they stand. I hate having to guess about trolls, stupidity, and metagame powergaming twinks.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 01:34:35 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572469
I think I see the problem. You guy see classes as what they are in non-3e fundamental defining aspect of your character. In 3e I find it's best to think of classes and prestige classes as more like Lego bricks you use to make the character you want to play.


Well, see, that's what classes ARE in just about every class-based game ever made.  They put you in an occupational box.  This is their entire point.

I do not believe that 3e's decision to allow you to take any class you want, and allow you to multiclass as you see fit suddenly changed D&D into a GURPS-style game.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572469

What got me into minmaxing is playing Fighter/Wizards in 3e. Even a simple 3.5 gish is somthing like Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Eldritch Knight X and even then you're a spell level behind and still suck at fighting.


Compared to who?  The wizard with no levels in fighter at all?  How's about compared to a core-rules Rogue?

Honestly though, I don't really see Eldritch Knight as anything more than multiclassing Fighter and Wizard, but in a single package.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: beeber on August 17, 2012, 01:36:04 PM
Quote from: Bill;572400
I think some people never roleplay, and just kill stuff.


one guy in my defunct 3.x campaign was like that.  didn't care for the RP but loved combat-on-the-grid.  i could do RP with the other two in the campaign, but only for so long before he would get antsy for combat.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 17, 2012, 01:36:20 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;572486
Well, I have said before that I have run plenty of games for optimizers and I personally have no problem with people playing that way if that is what they like...I can even see the fun of trying to work and beat the system so to speak. But, while I am perfectly familiar with the stormwind fallacy, I don't think it is terribly persuasive. My experience is optimizers can certainly role play characters, but by definition they only play otpimized builds. While optimizers like to argue that optiminal choices are realistic character decisions, I rarely see people choosing the most optimal path in real life. In my experience optimization can make for interesting combats but usually leads to less interesting characters. Also every optimizer I have played with, eventually tells me the fun for them comes from beating the system, not realizing a character concept. Creating a character that can throw an ungodly amount of knives a round isn't realizing a character concept, its min/maxing. And with the net, it frankly isn't that hard to do.

If I have a group of players who are all optimizers, the game goes fine. I can have fun as a GM and they can have fun as players. But most players are not optimizers. And when you have a mixed group, and one side sees the game as a contest and the other doesn't, it does typically lead to problems.


I can think of two powergamers that actually admit they care more about breaking the game than roleplay. Most simply will not admit it.

Both of them are able to roleplay, but their goal is to break the system, NOT to take the abilities of a theme.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 17, 2012, 01:37:20 PM
Ooh, Stormwind.  I was wondering how long it'd be before we saw that one.  Usually that one gets dropped like clockwork, I was starting to despair.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 17, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: CerilianSeeming;572497
Ooh, Stormwind.  I was wondering how long it'd be before we saw that one.  Usually that one gets dropped like clockwork, I was starting to despair.


Around here it is a bit of a rarity. Even on other boards I haven't seen it for some time. Doesn't quite have the currency it had in 2007.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 01:39:47 PM
Quote from: Bill;572483
There is a huge difference between a regular multiclass character, and a powergamed dipping machine.

We all know that most players with powergamed multiclass builds are not following a theme. They are creating a build they want to try out, and pretending it was roleplay based. In the worst cases, they just want to be uber, or show off their build.

Pathfinder mitigates this somewhat by removing front loading the classes and capstone abilities.  Multiclassing and most especially level dipping will cost you and is strictly inferior. Fantasy Craft does it by introducing 14th level "gamebreaker" abilities and capstone abilities.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 01:40:08 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572480
He's pushing our buttons deliberately.

You can tell because he never once acknowledges that the people who support this thread don't play 3.x, and also his ideas enbody the very premise of this thread perfectly.

At least I have the decency to openly call people rape babies, instead of engaging in subterfuge.


Apparently brand new to both here and the Den, probably a Goon Op.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 17, 2012, 01:41:36 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572425
If I were to hazard a guess, I would surmise that you are the type who finds fellow gamers via online communities, and is constantly drifting from table to table, eventually becoming unwelcome at all of them.


If I were to hazard a guess about you, it would be that you are an idiot who resorts to attacking people personally when you have no actual argument.

I suppose the main difference between my guess and yours is that mine is based on evidence, and yours is not.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;572425
Swinging around a big number cock at the game table grants you the illusion of accomplishment, without actually having to engage in the kind of risk that leads to REAL accomplishments. And that's what makes you the kind of asshole that 3.x appeals to.


Also you apparently, in addition to not being able to read, also don't know anything about 3e. Never mind that absolutely none of my examples have involved numbers ever, in 3e the real power doesn't come from numbers most of the time.

Certainly nothing I listed as empowering in any way involves numbers.

Quote from: mcbobbo;572448
Yeah, from my view one is a character that could plausibly exist and another is a metagame construct that only exists to fuel a build.

I can imagine Ragnar, starting as a Fighter, leveling as a Fighter as he learns his dungeoneering trade.

I cannot imagine Ragnar defending the woods for a while, then eschewing his natural upbringing for rigid training at a military school - just enough to get the basics, mind you - and THEN dumping all that combat training to practice SORCERY for fuck's sake.


That would be the part were your own personal weird hang ups get in the way of your understanding.

Nothing about Ranger requires defending the woods or having a natural upbringing. Nothing about being a fighter requires rigid training or military school. Nothing about being a Sorcerer involves giving up your combat training, just awakening new talents that you use in your martial practice.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 17, 2012, 01:42:55 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572469
I think I see the problem. You guy see classes as what they are in non-3e fundamental defining aspect of your character. In 3e I find it's best to think of classes and prestige classes as more like Lego bricks you use to make the character you want to play.

I'm not willing to change what I want out of D&D because WOTC's version of the rules is easy to (mis-?)use as a deck-building RPG. I have nearly zero interest in deck-building card games and even less interest in deck-building in TTRPGs. When I ran 3.x, classes are exactly what they were in D&D pre-WOTC: a fundamental defining aspect of characters. I won't play 3.x games where classes are "Lego bricks you use to make the character" either.

BTW, I don't like building characters with points, either. I'm just not into builds -- especially if I'm expected to min-max the damn thing.

However, none of this really matters to me as I don't play 3.x any more. I tried 4e and left quickly. What I am seeing and hearing about 5e is not lighting any strong interest fires for me. WOTC D&D simply goes in directions I found boring and encourages what I have always considered unacceptable player behavior (at any table I'm at, at least).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 01:48:08 PM
3.x, where every person is a sorcerer with extensive combat training in arms and armor.


Yeah, no thanks.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 01:48:55 PM
Quote from: Bill;572495
I can think of two powergamers that actually admit they care more about breaking the game than roleplay. Most simply will not admit it.

Both of them are able to roleplay, but their goal is to break the system, NOT to take the abilities of a theme.


I have met quite a few in my time the vast majority seem to be 18 or under. Most grow out of that in their mid-20's when women, job, and children start becoming a far larger factor in their lives, at least in my observation.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 01:51:20 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572509
3.x, where every person is a sorcerer with extensive combat training in arms and armor.

Yeah, no thanks.


I just can't reconcile why you wouldn't just make True Strike a feat.  Or give everyone a 'Ring of True Strike'.  Or fix it in any of a hundred ways that do not involve bending reality and advocating that others do likewise...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 17, 2012, 01:58:29 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572502
Pathfinder mitigates this somewhat by removing front loading the classes and capstone abilities.  Multiclassing and most especially level dipping will cost you and is strictly inferior. Fantasy Craft does it by introducing 14th level "gamebreaker" abilities and capstone abilities.


Pathfinder also does not have splatbooks yet, or have those arrived? :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 02:00:27 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572505[/QUOTE


Nothing about Ranger requires defending the woods or having a natural upbringing. Nothing about being a fighter requires rigid training or military school. Nothing about being a Sorcerer involves giving up your combat training, just awakening new talents that you use in your martial practice.


This is quite possibly the stupidest thing you have ever said while being here. I'm impressed.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 17, 2012, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: Bill;572518
Pathfinder also does not have splatbooks yet, or have those arrived? :)


Inner Sea Guide for Golarion (setting)
Ultimate Magic
Ultimate Combat
Advanced Player's Guide
Advanced Race Guide
Ultimate Equipment

Those are all out, plus many of the AP's have special stuff in them.  It's not quite down to Tome & Blood status yet, but it's working on it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 02:03:13 PM
Quote from: Bill;572518
Pathfinder also does not have splatbooks yet, or have those arrived? :)


They have them yes sir. Just not as many as Wotc because Paizo doesn't play the game of "everything is core" either.:)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 17, 2012, 02:04:45 PM
Quote from: Bill;572495
I can think of two powergamers that actually admit they care more about breaking the game than roleplay. Most simply will not admit it.


Just like you won't admit that you beat your wife?

I ask because... well, maybe they just don't. That's the usual reason people don't admit to something.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;572501
Around here it is a bit of a rarity. Even on other boards I haven't seen it for some time. Doesn't quite have the currency it had in 2007.


I think what happened is that sane people just sort of realized it was true, and haven't had to talk about it since. Meanwhile, psycho grognards formed their own special communities away from those people and banned it's use by proving they are completely incapable of understanding it.

At this point, outside this forum it is not brought up as much because the number of times were people have seriously contended that playing a more powerful character is evidence that someone can't roleplay has drastically reduced over time.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 02:05:32 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572409
He also doesn't seem to take into account the possibility that I play a version of D&D that doesn't include Feats, Skills or PrCs, and therefore do not "build" a character when I sit down to play.

His single-minded pursuit of proving this thread's premise correct leads me to believe that he's either an aspie, a troll, or some combination of the two.

Even in your precious pre3e you love so much has builds.  Want a particular weapon that 'fits' your ideal,  want particular spells to fit your 'theme', have a particular 'catch phrase', clothing, race, etc, etc.  Yeah, guess what that's all  build.  

3e builds may be more math/RAW oriented, doesn't make them anymore wrong than a build pre3e.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 02:07:50 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572502
Pathfinder mitigates this somewhat by removing front loading the classes and capstone abilities.  Multiclassing and most especially level dipping will cost you and is strictly inferior. Fantasy Craft does it by introducing 14th level "gamebreaker" abilities and capstone abilities.


Ah, yes "Pathfinder" the group of 3.5 houserules that nerfs Power Attack and gives spellcasters even more class features allegedly being sold for actual money by Pazio. We have dismissed that claim.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 02:08:06 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572526
Even in your precious pre3e you love so much has builds.  Want a particular weapon that 'fits' your ideal,  want particular spells to fit your 'theme', have a particular 'catch phrase', clothing, race, etc, etc.  Yeah, guess what that's all  build.  

3e builds may be more math/RAW oriented, doesn't make them anymore wrong than a build pre3e.


No, sorry, I don't use the word in that way.  And as I said upthread, if for you 'build' == 'character', then what's the point of using a word other than 'character'?

There is a difference between selecting things that fit your character and bending class concepts to give you a statistical advantage in combat, for example.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 02:09:42 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572525
Just like you won't admit that you beat your wife?


Perhaps my wife and I are into S&M.  What does this have to do with roleplaying?

Wait, I think I answered my own question...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572526
Even in your precious pre3e you love so much has builds.  Want a particular weapon that 'fits' your ideal,  want particular spells to fit your 'theme', have a particular 'catch phrase', clothing, race, etc, etc.  Yeah, guess what that's all  build.  

3e builds may be more math/RAW oriented, doesn't make them anymore wrong than a build pre3e.


Says the man that plays once a year if ever, gotcha.

This thread is like a Venus Flytraps for trolls. Good job Ben.:D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 02:15:05 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572527
Ah, yes "Pathfinder" the group of 3.5 houserules that nerfs Power Attack and gives spellcasters even more class features allegedly being sold for actual money by Pazio. We have dismissed that claim.


You're pretty entertaining for a twit. Stupid but funny.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572512
I just can't reconcile why you wouldn't just make True Strike a feat.  Or give everyone a 'Ring of True Strike'.  Or fix it in any of a hundred ways that do not involve bending reality and advocating that others do likewise...


The mistake a lot of people start making is thinking that a character with a particular 'build' is necessarily more powerful than a character with a different build.  

I just threw out Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Sorcerer 1, but not without reason.  Ranger offers some useful skills for stealth, etc, and it provides a full BAB progression which stacks nicely with the Fighter levels.  The Fighter 2 provides 2 additional feats, plus continues the good BAB.  Sorcerer gives you a few 1st level spells per day.

Compared to a 5th level Wizard with 3rd level spells, this character is probably not particularly good.  

Compared to a Ranger 5, they are probably pretty close.  The difference is that they can give up a round of actions to make an extremely difficult shot a few times per day.  

Evaluating a character should involve more than just decrying a combination as 'impossible in normal play'.  If it's not broken compared to other characters (and most 'builds' are not), it's what the player wants to play, and it doesn't require anything not usually found in the setting, what's the problem?

Making a samurai in Western Europe might be bad.  But making a sorcererous archer isn't such a big deal.  That's the kind of thing you should EXPECT in a normal setting.  

The only difference is that 3.x makes 'dual-classing' much easier.  It's roughly the same as 'multi-classing' the way an elf or dwarf could.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 02:26:18 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572503
Apparently brand new to both here and the Den, probably a Goon Op.


I've been quoted twice on their grognards.txt thread.

That gave me a happy.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 02:29:57 PM
Since it seems relevant:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 02:34:25 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572531
Says the man that plays once a year if ever, gotcha.

This thread is like a Venus Flytraps for trolls. Good job Ben.:D

Really?

So just how much has changed in the last say 10 years for 1e or 2e?

Did I somehow lose my card because I only play for 6-8 sessions a year?

Just how much do you play, you know you who plays WoD or fantasy craft.  You ripping out multiple sessions a week on 2e?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572536
The mistake a lot of people start making is thinking that a character with a particular 'build' is necessarily more powerful than a character with a different build.  

I just threw out Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Sorcerer 1, but not without reason.  Ranger offers some useful skills for stealth, etc, and it provides a full BAB progression which stacks nicely with the Fighter levels.  The Fighter 2 provides 2 additional feats, plus continues the good BAB.  Sorcerer gives you a few 1st level spells per day.

Compared to a 5th level Wizard with 3rd level spells, this character is probably not particularly good.  

Compared to a Ranger 5, they are probably pretty close.  The difference is that they can give up a round of actions to make an extremely difficult shot a few times per day.  

Evaluating a character should involve more than just decrying a combination as 'impossible in normal play'.  If it's not broken compared to other characters (and most 'builds' are not), it's what the player wants to play, and it doesn't require anything not usually found in the setting, what's the problem?

Making a samurai in Western Europe might be bad.  But making a sorcererous archer isn't such a big deal.  That's the kind of thing you should EXPECT in a normal setting.  

The only difference is that 3.x makes 'dual-classing' much easier.  It's roughly the same as 'multi-classing' the way an elf or dwarf could.
At least you're honest that you deckbuild and have not one clue about rpg's.  Jesus what a shitpile mentality it makes me sad because you ALMOST had me fooled.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 17, 2012, 02:39:40 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572536
Evaluating a character should involve more than just decrying a combination as 'impossible in normal play'.  If it's not broken compared to other characters (and most 'builds' are not), it's what the player wants to play, and it doesn't require anything not usually found in the setting, what's the problem?

I not only disagree that most 'builds' are not, particularly when they advocate 'dipping', but wonder if you're really such a fan of it if this is your belief.

Going back to your 'spiritual archer' example, I'm not at all sure why you need spells to realize that character.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 02:40:54 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572543
Really?

So just how much has changed in the last say 10 years for 1e or 2e?

Did I somehow lose my card because I only play for 6-8 sessions a year?

Just how much do you play, you know you who plays WoD or fantasy craft.  You ripping out multiple sessions a week on 2e?


Currently?  Twice a week once for Fantasy Craft once for Pathfinder.  What does pre 3e have to do with your previous troll attempt?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 17, 2012, 02:41:37 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572536
The only difference is that 3.x makes 'dual-classing' much easier.  It's roughly the same as 'multi-classing' the way an elf or dwarf could.


??? 1E/2E multiclassing is nothing at all like 3X multiclassing ???
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 02:42:43 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572543
Really?

So just how much has changed in the last say 10 years for 1e or 2e?

Did I somehow lose my card because I only play for 6-8 sessions a year?

Just how much do you play, you know you who plays WoD or fantasy craft.  You ripping out multiple sessions a week on 2e?


Currently?  Once a week rotating biweekly for Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder I would play or run a MtAw game at the drop of a hat if my schedule allowed.  What does pre 3x have to do with your previous troll attempt?  Why act all shocked, you all by yourself said how much you actually play pretty recently so what's the issue?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 02:43:31 PM
Quote from: Bill;572550
??? 1E/2E multiclassing is nothing at all like 3X multiclassing ???

Didn't we establish that these guys have no fucking clue what they're talking about when throwing up bullshit about 1e before?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 17, 2012, 02:45:57 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572552
Didn't we establish that these guys have no fucking clue what they're talking about when throwing up bullshit about 1e before?


That's was a pretty clear example of not having played 1E or 2E, or even the Baldur's gate computer game :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572505
If I were to hazard a guess about you, it would be that you are an idiot who resorts to attacking people personally when you have no actual argument.

I suppose the main difference between my guess and yours is that mine is based on evidence, and yours is not.

Also you apparently, in addition to not being able to read, also don't know anything about 3e. Never mind that absolutely none of my examples have involved numbers ever, in 3e the real power doesn't come from numbers most of the time.

Oh, I understand what you are getting at. Charm Person has nothing to do with numbers and has everything to do with player agency. That's why it does more "damage" than fireball, a spell two levels higher. I simply don't give a shit.

The problem is that your idea of "player empowerment" is complete and utter disingenuous bullshit.

Let me elaborate:

Old school player empowerment, of the sort that has been espoused in this thread, is based on ingenuity and social contract.

Yes...theoretically some GMs can just choose to slap you in the face with their dicks...but they tend to quickly find themselves without players. You know, social contract. Believe me...there's a weekly post on my local Meetup.com boards from one such player/GM who continually gets booted from groups.

The crux of the matter is that this form of empowerment includes everyone at the table who is willing to participate in good faith.

Now....your form of player empowerment is based around using rules wankery to bully the table into giving you what you want. Whereas old school empowerment is a democracy that includes the entire table, your's is a military coup based on who wins the system mastery arms race.

So new players and casual players....you know...like the ones at my table...and the ones at Benoist's table and CRKrueger's...and at the vast, fucking VAST majority of gaming tables out there aren't allowed to play your D&D. They don't have the time or inclination analyze the system for the best choices....so they don't get to be empowered....they get to go cry in a corner while new daddy fucks their moms in the ass and you alone chart the course of the campaign with your uber-cheesed magic deck of a character, because you happen to have the wherewithal to sit in a basement for hours weighing the virtues of Forcecage vs. Prismatic Spray (Forcecage...I know. Jesus.)

THAT is why you are a cunt, and should go fuck off to yugioh.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 02:55:56 PM
Quote from: Bill;572555
That's was a pretty clear example of not having played 1E or 2E, or even the Baldur's gate computer game :)


No! Say it ain't so father!?!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Imp on August 17, 2012, 02:55:57 PM
Quote
At least you're honest that you deckbuild and have not one clue about rpg's.


Eh, the ranger 2/ fighter 2/ sorc 1 isn't totally ludicrous (though I might want some explanation as to how the character developed innate magical powers, there's usually a number of times a 4th-level character might have been Bruce Bannered, at least)... it's usually when there are four different base classes or there's a wild thematic disparity between them that my "are you fucking kidding me" meter goes off.

The one point I'll grant the total shitpigs here is that if you are strictly looking to balance things in 3e, multi and prestige classes aren't really the problem, given that multi-classing generally benefits martial classes in 3.x and martial classes are a bit weaker to begin with. When you start looking at things from a conceptual standpoint or from an information overload standpoint, that's where a massive proliferation of splat classes freely chosen by players gets to be a real problem.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 02:56:42 PM
As somone who owns 2e books, I'll admit that the 2e multiclassing system is fairly elegent if what you want is a "hybrid" character. 3e multiclassing really encourages dipping and makes 2e style hybrids impossible without a prestige class.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 03:01:53 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572526
Even in your precious pre3e you love so much has builds.  Want a particular weapon that 'fits' your ideal,  want particular spells to fit your 'theme', have a particular 'catch phrase', clothing, race, etc, etc.  Yeah, guess what that's all  build.  

3e builds may be more math/RAW oriented, doesn't make them anymore wrong than a build pre3e.


Yeeeaaahhh...you're full of shit.

You don't plan your 1st edition AD&D character, or your Basic D&D or character several levels in advance.

The fact that you enjoy this aspect of play means that you are suffering from: "Ooh I'm a unique and beautiful butterfly! Everyone watch me flutter about pretty and free! Flutter flutter!"

Go play magic cards you pink, weeping vagina.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 03:03:41 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572564
As somone who owns 2e books, I'll admit that the 2e multiclassing system is fairly elegent if what you want is a "hybrid" character. 3e multiclassing really encourages dipping and makes 2e style hybrids impossible without a prestige class.


What?  A glimmer of intelligence or a masterful troll attempt? You decide I can't be arsed to care anymore.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 17, 2012, 03:08:11 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572526
Even in your precious pre3e you love so much has builds.  Want a particular weapon that 'fits' your ideal,  want particular spells to fit your 'theme', have a particular 'catch phrase', clothing, race, etc, etc.  Yeah, guess what that's all  build.  

3e builds may be more math/RAW oriented, doesn't make them anymore wrong than a build pre3e.


Don't be dumb. Words mean things. Calling 'catch phrase' or choice of clothing part of a build might be technically correct but it dilutes the concept to uselessness. Granted, it does serve as a "gotcha" attempt, albeit a really lame one.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572559
Oh, I understand
THAT is why you are a cunt, and should go fuck off to yugioh.

Snipped for some seriously awesome stuff but this line pretty much encapsulated it just perfectly.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 03:12:01 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572551
Currently?  Once a week rotating biweekly for Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder I would play or run a MtAw game at the drop of a hat if my schedule allowed.  What does pre 3x have to do with your previous troll attempt?  Why act all shocked, you all by yourself said how much you actually play pretty recently so what's the issue?

My previous troll attempt?  You mean me saying that any character concept is a 'build'.  That is 100% accurate.  How the hell is that a 'troll attempt'?

Creating a character through the game mechanics is a build, no matter how much you want to make 'build' be a derogatory term only for 3e/4e

Tossing out troll in an attempt to ingrate yourself to other regulars here just makes you small and pathetic.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Traveller on August 17, 2012, 03:13:06 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572568
What?  A glimmer of intelligence or a masterful troll attempt?

Ah the only masterful troll around here was that TrueGygaxFan dude, a parody within a parody.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 03:15:14 PM
In my opinion, the difference comes down to this:

In 1e, most people I know created a character based on an archetype.  Maybe a hero out of a book, or something like that and just picket the race/class combo that best fit it.  From there, you didn't pick or choose most of your abilities.  You didn't plan 10 or even 20 (gasp!) levels ahead.  Hell, most of your characters never made it to level 10, so planning to level 20 was an absurd waste of time.

In 3e, people seem to be building characters not around an archetype, but around a power set.  I.e., here's the powers I want, so now I'll reverse engineer it to find out which feat combination gets me those powers.  Characters are less "characters", and more of just a list of powers and abilities.

In 1e, the campaign world and adventures taken build the character into what he is.  In 3e, all this is pre-planned out and the adventure becomes just an XP mill to get to that end build.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 03:17:29 PM
Quote from: vytzka;572571
Don't be dumb. Words mean things. Calling 'catch phrase' or choice of clothing part of a build might be technically correct but it dilutes the concept to uselessness. Granted, it does serve as a "gotcha" attempt, albeit a really lame one.

I'm not being dumb.  It's juvenile onetruewayism.   An idea that has been around for decades is now being used purely as hate.

You have to build your character no matter which goddamn edition you are playing.  Why is it now oh so wrong to do so?  Because 3e has more rules governing the process?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 03:18:15 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572577
My previous troll attempt?  You mean me saying that any character concept is a 'build'.  That is 100% accurate.  How the hell is that a 'troll attempt'?

Creating a character through the game mechanics is a build, no matter how much you want to make 'build' be a derogatory term only for 3e/4e

Tossing out troll in an attempt to ingrate yourself to other regulars here just makes you small and pathetic.



Pssst.  If you do a google search for D&D character builds, do you know what comes up?  Thousands of sites for 3.5 and 4e character builds.  Do you know what doesn't come up?  Sites for AD&D character builds.  You know why?  Because they aren't considered builds because there's no real customization there.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 17, 2012, 03:18:21 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572582
I'm not being dumb.  It's juvenile onetruewayism.   An idea that has been around for decades is now being used purely as hate.

You have to build your character no matter which goddamn edition you are playing.  Why is it now oh so wrong to do so?  Because 3e has more rules governing the process?

You're lying.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572577
My previous troll attempt?  You mean me saying that any character concept is a 'build'.  That is 100% accurate.  How the hell is that a 'troll attempt'?

Creating a character through the game mechanics is a build, no matter how much you want to make 'build' be a derogatory term only for 3e/4e

Tossing out troll in an attempt to ingrate yourself to other regulars here just makes you small and pathetic.


No, I mean you expecting to be taken seriously.

@The Traveller, that was just stupid.  Masterful is Mistwell. Summerjon tries hard but he doesn't ACTUALLY play enough to get it correct.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 03:21:01 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572559
Oh, I understand what you are getting at. Charm Person has nothing to do with numbers and has everything to do with player agency. That's why it does more "damage" than fireball, a spell two levels higher. I simply don't give a shit.

The problem is that your idea of "player empowerment" is complete and utter disingenuous bullshit.

Let me elaborate:

Old school player empowerment, of the sort that has been espoused in this thread, is based on ingenuity and social contract.

Yes...theoretically some GMs can just choose to slap you in the face with their dicks...but they tend to quickly find themselves without players. You know, social contract. Believe me...there's a weekly post on my local Meetup.com boards from one such player/GM who continually gets booted from groups.

The crux of the matter is that this form of empowerment includes everyone at the table who is willing to participate in good faith.

Now....your form of player empowerment is based around using rules wankery to bully the table into giving you what you want. Whereas old school empowerment is a democracy that includes the entire table, your's is a military coup based on who wins the system mastery arms race.

So new players and casual players....you know...like the ones at my table...and the ones at Benoist's table and CRKrueger's...and at the vast, fucking VAST majority of gaming tables out there aren't allowed to play your D&D. They don't have the time or inclination analyze the system for the best choices....so they don't get to be empowered....they get to go cry in a corner while new daddy fucks their moms in the ass and you alone chart the course of the campaign with your uber-cheesed magic deck of a character, because you happen to have the wherewithal to sit in a basement for hours weighing the virtues of Forcecage vs. Prismatic Spray (Forcecage...I know. Jesus.)

THAT is why you are a cunt, and should go fuck off to yugioh.


Well. That about summarizes it, as far as I'm concerned.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 17, 2012, 03:25:55 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572582
You have to build your character no matter which goddamn edition you are playing.  Why is it now oh so wrong to do so?  Because 3e has more rules governing the process?


I don't have the stomach for 3.x, including long term character progressions, but I don't think I said it was wrong. However, you did toss in completely bogus things like catchphrases and clothing in there as if they're somehow equivalent to that. How many games, let alone editions of D&D, even have rules for that?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 03:26:35 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572581
In my opinion, the difference comes down to this:

In 1e, most people I know created a character based on an archetype.  Maybe a hero out of a book, or something like that and just picket the race/class combo that best fit it.  From there, you didn't pick or choose most of your abilities.  You didn't plan 10 or even 20 (gasp!) levels ahead.  Hell, most of your characters never made it to level 10, so planning to level 20 was an absurd waste of time.

In 3e, people seem to be building characters not around an archetype, but around a power set.  I.e., here's the powers I want, so now I'll reverse engineer it to find out which feat combination gets me those powers.  Characters are less "characters", and more of just a list of powers and abilities.

In 1e, the campaign world and adventures taken build the character into what he is.  In 3e, all this is pre-planned out and the adventure becomes just an XP mill to get to that end build.
Spot on. And I am a 3x player. That's why the limits so that "mentality" has a chance to shift back to 2e and before.  Rules aren't the issue really it's the behind the scenes mentality that's empowered by 3/4e.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 17, 2012, 03:28:56 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572559
Now....your form of player empowerment is based around using rules wankery to bully the table into giving you what you want. Whereas old school empowerment is a democracy that includes the entire table, your's is a military coup based on who wins the system mastery arms race.


Again, you fail to understand the simple principle that we don't play with dumb shits like you.

No one needs to bully anyone because we all agreed to play by the rules at the beginning, because that's what we all enjoy.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 17, 2012, 03:31:02 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572582
I'm not being dumb.  It's juvenile onetruewayism.   An idea that has been around for decades is now being used purely as hate.

You have to build your character no matter which goddamn edition you are playing.  Why is it now oh so wrong to do so?  Because 3e has more rules governing the process?


The term build, as it came to be used under 3E, was not really a concept before. We talked about min/maxers, but the idea that the 3e build only becoes possibly with 3e multiclasing, class dipping, feats, etc. Toward the tale end of 3E you could kind of do this sort of thing with skills and powers, but i dont think I knew anyone who even used that book. And even then i dont think I ever heard of a buiild until at least a year into playing 3E.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 17, 2012, 03:35:03 PM
Skills & Powers is a very fun book as long as no one is trying to be a douche about it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Traveller on August 17, 2012, 03:35:29 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572586
@The Traveller, that was just stupid.

Only if you managed to blithely sail past the point. :p
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 17, 2012, 03:40:34 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572595
Again, you fail to understand the simple principle that we don't play with dumb shits like you.

No one needs to bully anyone because we all agreed to play by the rules at the beginning, because that's what we all enjoy.


Because you're a bunch soulless bureaucrats.

Say...I've got a game that you guys will love...it's called Quicken.

Seriously though, just leave. You don't have a prayer of winning this argument.

How can I put this in terms you'll understand?

I've got more "+1s" than you do.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 03:41:55 PM
Quote from: vytzka;572599
Skills & Powers is a very fun book as long as no one is trying to be a douche about it.

I agree, it was alot of fun just like UA for that matter.  But as Declan previously said it's all about the Social Contract (which Denners et al try to shift the goalposts and definitionally change to "Mother may I").
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 03:46:37 PM
Quote from: The Traveller;572600
Only if you managed to blithely sail past the point. :p


I have nothing to disagree about there.  Thanks for introducing a bit of levity in this trainwreck. Thanks again Ben for the entertainment, no seriously, IRL sucks currently.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 17, 2012, 03:50:20 PM
Quote from: vytzka;572591
I don't have the stomach for 3.x, including long term character progressions, but I don't think I said it was wrong. However, you did toss in completely bogus things like catchphrases and clothing in there as if they're somehow equivalent to that. How many games, let alone editions of D&D, even have rules for that?


Oh come on now, who hasn't spent countless hours agonizing over the choice between soft riding boots and regular riding boots?  That's a fundamental choice that will affect me in all aspects of...

...okay, I can't keep typing this with a straight face. :p
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 03:55:15 PM
Quote from: CerilianSeeming;572607
Oh come on now, who hasn't spent countless hours agonizing over the choice between soft riding boots and regular riding boots?  That's a fundamental choice that will affect me in all aspects of...

...okay, I can't keep typing this with a straight face. :p


Maybe you don't, but shoes make the outfit it's the biggest part of of it! Seriously,  I'm wounded. ;)

To be absolutely serious I sometimes am mostly convinced I play wizards and sorcereress's all the time is the dresscode/accessories and what that actually means I can do within those parameters even BEFORE the game starts.:)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: vytzka;572599
Skills & Powers is a very fun book as long as no one is trying to be a douche about it.


I actually agree with that. Much like 3rd ed.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 17, 2012, 04:05:02 PM
Quote from: vytzka;572599
Skills & Powers is a very fun book as long as no one is trying to be a douche about it.


Great book, allthough Clerics got too many points :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 04:06:51 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572610
I actually agree with that. Much like 3rd ed.


Hence 36 pages of free entertainment.:D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: Me
Ban shit for being overpowered and I may point and laugh (If you clearly know nothing of game balance). Ban shit for not fitting into your homebrewed setting and I can grudgingly accept.


Since noone reads my posts let me reiterate. The DM has the power to determine what things are allowed in his game. Like all DM powers this comes with the obligation to use it in a non-asshole way. I'm totally fine with not letting someone play a Psion or Incarnate if the fluff won't fit in your world. Don't be a controlling asshole and go “dirty minmaxer no prc for you tolololo” be a fucking adult. If someone brings a character to the table that's overpowered for your campaign ask them to tone it down they may not know they're being a problem.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 04:11:35 PM
Quote from: Bill;572611
Great book, allthough Clerics got too many points :)


What I really hope is that they give an option to point build like in the 2e DMG that works and maybe a middle ground S&P.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572614
Don't be a controlling asshole and go “dirty minmaxer no prc for you tolololo” be a fucking adult.

You do realize you are arguing against some take on banning PrCs that NO ONE BUT YOURSELF made in this thread, right? People have said, and quoted the RAW as part of their justification, that PrCs that are not in tune with the world, which the GM runs, may be excluded from the game on that basis. You are the one here who went on a tangent against "GMs who ban PrCs because they can't take them" and this argument you are fighting only exists in your head so far.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 17, 2012, 04:20:23 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572617
this argument you are fighting only exists in your head


Kinda like the OP?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 04:20:57 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572614
I'm totally fine with not letting someone play a Psion or Incarnate if the fluff won't fit in your world.


Quote from: Benoist;572617
You do realize you are arguing against some take on banning PrCs that NO ONE BUT YOURSELF made in this thread, right? People have said, and quoted the RAW as part of their justification, that PrCs that are not in tune with the world, which the GM runs, may be excluded from the game on that basis. You are the one here who went on a tangent against "GMs who ban PrCs because they can't take them" and this argument you are fighting only exists in your head so far.


Is it that you can't read or do you live in some bizarre alternate reality populated by strawmen.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 04:22:30 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572617
You do realize you are arguing against some take on banning PrCs that NO ONE BUT YOURSELF made in this thread, right? People have said, and quoted the RAW as part of their justification, that PrCs that are not in tune with the world, which the GM runs, may be excluded from the game on that basis. You are the one here who went on a tangent against "GMs who ban PrCs because they can't take them" and this argument you are fighting only exists in your head so far.


As I said many times I love 3x beyond the multi-dipping the BIG mistake of 3x is not grounding PrC's into campaign worlds or settings. But Mistborn isn't wrong in his last post, sorry.

A good solution is how Fantasy Craft does it. You have your prestige classes like Monks, Paladins, Spellswords. Then you get campaign specific 5 level classes only available in particular campaigns and settings.

And yes I believe Monks, Paladins and many others have no business being base classes and make it so in my Dnd.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 04:22:40 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572621
Is it that you can't read or do you live in some bizarre alternate reality populated by strawmen.


Are you a moron? Can't you read the part I quoted?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 04:23:28 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;572620
Kinda like the OP?


Nope, kinda like your posts about what you think I meant, actually.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 04:25:32 PM
I really like multi-class characters.  

Online, I've got the following characters:
Ranger 1/Bard 2
Wizard (Abjurer) 3
Ranger 1/Cleric 4
Bard 1/Cleric 3

As far as 2nd edition, if you were dual-classed, you had to advance as one class before switching over.  Once you were a higher level in your second class, you could use all of your abilities.  

3.x multi-class doesn't work that way at all.

In 2nd edition, a demi-human could multi-class.  They'd gain abilities in more than one class simultaneously, but they weren't as GOOD at anything as a single class character.  

3.x multi-classing is a little bit like that.  The big difference is that you have to take the levels in the class one at a time.  

So if you were going to be a wizard/fighter; in 2nd edition you took that class.  In 3.x you have to take a level of one followed by a level in another.  That can get clunky if your concept is a 'fusion', but once you allow that taking a level in one class isn't designed to CONSTRAIN your options, it's just an approximation of your concept, it should be no problem.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 17, 2012, 04:25:34 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572614
Since noone reads my posts let me reiterate. The DM has the power to determine what things are allowed in his game. Like all DM powers this comes with the obligation to use it in a non-asshole way. I'm totally fine with not letting someone play a Psion or Incarnate if the fluff won't fit in your world. Don't be a controlling asshole and go “dirty minmaxer no prc for you tolololo” be a fucking adult. If someone brings a character to the table that's overpowered for your campaign ask them to tone it down they may not know they're being a problem.


But people rarely just ban shit for the lulz, unless they're dicks (in which case why are you playing with them). They usually have reasons that are better or worse thought out and you ought to respect them since by GMing they're almost definitely putting in more effort than you are.

Like, I really like giffs. I think they're the most awesome of the nonhuman races. However, most people seem to think they're pretty daft and when you think about it they might be right. So if I want to play in a campaign and the DM says no giffs I don't have to be happy about it but either I think the sadly giffless campaign is worth playing in or not. At no point is it going to be worth it pestering them with arguments that giffs are awesome/balanced/a social critique about how being in the military turns you dumb and thick headed.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 17, 2012, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572625
Nope, kinda like your posts about what you think I meant, actually.


Yeah, just keep your head up your ass about that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 04:30:08 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;572629
Yeah, just keep your head up your ass about that.


Who's shitting up who's thread, now, mister?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 17, 2012, 04:33:12 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572632
Who's shitting up who's thread, now, mister?


I'm keeping on topic about how "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes". You cannot say the same about the Thunderdome thread.

And if you are so concerned about shitting up threads, then why haven't you taken note of Declan's trolling? Or are you just becomming a tBP mod?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 17, 2012, 04:35:32 PM
Get a room, you two.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 04:37:07 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;572633
I'm keeping on topic about how "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes". You cannot say the same about the Thunderdome thread.

Well since I don't post in it right now, yes, actually, I can.

Quote from: jeff37923;572633
And if you are so concerned about shitting up threads, then why haven't you taken note of Declan's trolling? Or are you just becomming a tBP mod?


So when the moderation doesn't go your way it's RPGnet? Since when is trolling a bannable offense on the RPG Site, exactly?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 17, 2012, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572637
Well since I don't post in it right now, yes, actually, I can.



So when the moderation doesn't go your way it's RPGnet? Since when is trolling a bannable offense on the RPG Site, exactly?


Nice tapdancing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;572638
Nice tapdancing.


Likewise.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 04:45:55 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572637
So when the moderation doesn't go your way it's RPGnet? Since when is trolling a bannable offense on the RPG Site, exactly?

When Pundit tells them they are crossing the line into site disruption, and they'd better quit it...and then they don't.  :D

If trolling itself were bannable half the "August Surprise" would be gone by now. :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 04:48:01 PM
Quote from: vytzka;572635
Get a room, you two.


I agree, I think there's something we aren't privy about here. Anyway nice to see you posting!  Tell me about Lithuania sometime where appropriate.  I have never been to Eastern Europe or the Baltic.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 04:53:28 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572640
When Pundit tells them they are crossing the line into site disruption, and they'd better quit it...and then they don't.  :D

If trolling itself were bannable half the "August Surprise" would be gone by now. :D


These guys are fine I can ignore them anytime but they entertain me. Sue me already but if you do good luck about getting actual money. A turnip has little blood and I am pretty much a dried husk.:D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 05:05:14 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572644
These guys are fine I can ignore them anytime but they entertain me. Sue me already but if you do good luck about getting actual money. A turnip has little blood and I am pretty much a dried husk.:D


Bah, blood means nothing, I'll take it in shoes just to be evil.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 17, 2012, 05:10:57 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572641
I agree, I think there's something we aren't privy about here. Anyway nice to see you posting!  Tell me about Lithuania sometime where appropriate.  I have never been to Eastern Europe or the Baltic.


Thanks, I'll make sure to do so some other day. Have to check out now, I'll have to get up early tomorrow to do some work in an anime con.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 05:18:43 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572648
Bah, blood means nothing, I'll take it in shoes just to be evil.


Now that is just MEAN man! :p
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 05:19:40 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572648
Bah, blood means nothing, I'll take it in shoes just to be evil.


Now that is just MEAN! :p
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 06:42:19 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;572584
You're lying.

I am?

You have to build your character from nothing into something in 1e and 2e and 3e and 4e.  3e and 4e may give you more tools to do that with, so what. The idea behind is still the same.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;572528
No, sorry, I don't use the word in that way.  And as I said upthread, if for you 'build' == 'character', then what's the point of using a word other than 'character'?

I do just use character.

Quote from: mcbobbo;572528
There is a difference between selecting things that fit your character and bending class concepts to give you a statistical advantage in combat, for example.

Correct.  The people who do these sorts of things deserve to be mocked.  However, in true rpgsite fashion, everyone who plays 3e+ are 'builders'.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 06:47:17 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572710
You have to build your character from nothing into something in 1e and 2e and 3e and 4e.  3e and 4e may give you more tools to do that with, so what. The idea behind is still the same.

Man, you just understand fuck all about TSR D&D, don't you?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 07:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572710
I am?

You have to build your character from nothing into something in 1e and 2e and 3e and 4e.  3e and 4e may give you more tools to do that with, so what. The idea behind is still the same.

Just what the fuck are you blathering about?

1. Roll dice
2. Pick a class you like
3. Play

Build? Get serious.  You build in game hon.

It's simply the KISS/PSSS principal in action. Which is obviously far too complex for you and "The Three Denners" it seems.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 07:12:56 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572712
I do just use character.


Correct.  The people who do these sorts of things deserve to be mocked.  However, in true rpgsite fashion, everyone who plays 3e+ are 'builders'.


The mock part I agree with, the other part? No. "Almost" and "Nearly all" et al are your friends.  Trust me, it works.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 17, 2012, 07:13:22 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572710
I am?

You have to build your character from nothing into something in 1e and 2e and 3e and 4e.  3e and 4e may give you more tools to do that with, so what. The idea behind is still the same.

You are. There is no "build" in pre-3e D&D.  Your insistence to the contrary betrays a lack of familiarity with pre-3e D&D and how it actually works, as well as a deliberate misuse of grammar to willfully obfuscate that point. Hence, you're lying.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 07:13:52 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572719
Just what the fuck are you blathering about?
Marleycat is not worth talking to. She actually doesn't have any idea about what she's talking about, how reasoning works, and can't parse the arguments of anybody who disagrees with her. She has little more than nothing to add to any conversation that's not about what music she likes or what her next avatar should be. You can seriously ignore all the posts she makes and you won't miss a thing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 07:15:59 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572713
Man, you just understand fuck all about TSR D&D, don't you?

Oh another onetruewayism.  I would say I'm surprised, but not from you.
You cannot fathom that people play your precious in a different way.

I understand that when a magic item came up and it wasn't my vision of my character(you know, build) I threw it away even though it was better than what I had.  I've witnessed dozens of other people do the same thing.  Like that guy who's character(Adrork Drunktree) hated ranged attacks and refused to use any ranged weapon.   Guess that was stupid of him right?  Who gives a shit if it fit his build
Quote from: Marleycat;572719
Just what the fuck are you blathering about?

1. Roll dice
2. Pick a class you like
3. Play

Build? Get serious.  You build in game hon.

Oh. you do?

So you can in no way start with a concept and plan ahead ever, at all?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;572723
You are. There is no "build" in pre-3e D&D.  Your insistence to the contrary betrays a lack of familiarity with pre-3e D&D and how it actually works, as well as a deliberate misuse of grammar to willfully obfuscate that point. Hence, you're lying.


The only way you can't "build" your character in (at least 2ed) is if you have some kind of odd definition of build. There are books. THose books have classes in them. Those classes have abilities you will eventually be able to choose from, the most damning of which is the fighter who you'll most likely build to master a certain kind of weapon.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 07:19:12 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572724
Marleycat is not worth talking to. She actually doesn't have any idea about what she's talking about, how reasoning works, and can't parse the arguments of anybody who disagrees with her. She has little more than nothing to add to any conversation that's not about what music she likes or what her next avatar should be. You can seriously ignore all the posts she makes and you won't miss a thing.

Just like you I guess, but you being even more stupid makes it even out right.  Do you actually know anything before 3e? Anything?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 07:19:28 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;572723
You are. There is no "build" in pre-3e D&D.  Your insistence to the contrary betrays a lack of familiarity with pre-3e D&D and how it actually works, as well as a deliberate misuse of grammar to willfully obfuscate that point. Hence, you're lying.

So that wizard striving for one particular spell is not a build?  That paladin doing his best to find a holy avenger, Rogue looking for a particular pair of boots, etc, etc.

These things are not "builds"?  Get the fuck over yourselves.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 17, 2012, 07:20:27 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572726
The only way you can't "build" your character in (at least 2ed) is if you have some kind of odd definition of build. There are books. THose books have classes in them. Those classes have abilities you will eventually be able to choose from, the most damning of which is the fighter who you'll most likely build to master a certain kind of weapon.

You roll the dice, take what you get, pick a race and/or class, gear up and go. That's pre-3e D&D, and that ain't building shit.  If you honestly think it is, then you're a retarded cunt; otherwise, you're a lying cunt because there ain't no "build" in pre-3e D&D.  It's as close to grab-and-go as it gets.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 17, 2012, 07:21:53 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572725
Quote from: Benoist;572713
Man, you just understand fuck all about TSR D&D, don't you?
Oh another onetruewayism.  I would say I'm surprised, but not from you.
You cannot fathom that people play your precious in a different way.

AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAH! Comedy GOLD, man!

I tell you "you don't understand what you are talking about (TSR D&D)" and your immediate reaction is to scream "onetrueway!"

Do you not see how completely stupid that response is?

By that yard stick you literally cannot NOT understand TSR D&D, because if I say you don't, it's "onetrueway". You can say whatever the fuck you want about the game now, like you're playing Mickey Mouse going into the Porn Business and that's D&D, because if I tell you "WTF dude do you understand the game?" then I'm guilty of "onetrueway".

That "onetrueway" concept has SO jumped the shark into completely ridiculous meme territory as to be completely hilarious. Please, go on. You entertain me! Dance, monkey. Dance!

:rotfl:
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 07:24:12 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572725
Oh another onetruewayism.  I would say I'm surprised, but not from you.
You cannot fathom that people play your precious in a different way.

I understand that when a magic item came up and it wasn't my vision of my character(you know, build) I threw it away even though it was better than what I had.  I've witnessed dozens of other people do the same thing.  Like that guy who's character(Adrork Drunktree) hated ranged attacks and refused to use any ranged weapon.   Guess that was stupid of him right?  Who gives a shit if it fit his build

Oh. you do?

So you can in no way start with a concept and plan ahead ever, at all?


Yeah silly, I decide "hey I want to try something like an elven princess sorceress/wizard" and it's on. Build? Seriously? What if that world doesn't allow Tower trained wizardresses? Just GO! That's the point, you get that spell or feat by playing not preplanning. Plans are great sometimes they even work but the actual results are more often far better and more fun if you ACTUALLY play. Try it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 07:30:13 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;572730
You roll the dice, take what you get, pick a race and/or class, gear up and go. That's pre-3e D&D, and that ain't building shit.  If you honestly think it is, then you're a retarded cunt; otherwise, you're a lying cunt because there ain't no "build" in pre-3e D&D.  It's as close to grab-and-go as it gets.


So tell me then, what prevents you from doing exactly what you described here in 3rd? There are rules for rolling attributes, there are races you can grab, classes you can select, gear you can pick up and shove off with. Hell there are even sample characters for each class you can grab and go. So tell me, what is the difference you are spurging over?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 17, 2012, 07:32:08 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572724
Marleycat is not worth talking to.


If I may offer some advice...

All that you said about Marleycat is is very true. All she's done is found what she thinks is the dominate clique here on the therpgsite (the Benoist/Sacrosanct/Declan MacManus bully group to point out the worst of the lot as I've left a few people out and the group has a number of satellites who in effect are just slightly different flavors of Marleycat) and sucked up to them by echoing their opinions and jumping in to attack people they're already attacking.

That specific group is really only about one thing- bullying and insulting anyone who plays the games according the rules, for different goals than them, and/or happen to be capable of handling systems more complex than they. They do this in a wolf pack style with little more then vulgar insults and ad hominem attacks. But that passes as reason for them. Since there's a bunch of them, they drown out their targets rather than engage them- and then proceed to pat themselves on their backs.

None of them are worth engaging with. I don't think I've ever seen a single one of them say something insightful. That is not their goal.

Therpgsite is mostly noise and flame, you have to search for the few posters who are worth talking to- the rest are best ignored. So state your opinion and then ignore them. Makes life easier.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 07:32:47 PM
I noticed that my comment about the google search was ignored by the denner crowd.  If TSR era D&D does in fact use character builds, then how come every single reference to character builds in D&D are exclusive to 3e and 4e?

Have we really gotten to the point where people are legitimately trying to argue that the term "character build" is the same in AD&D as well as 3e/4e, despite reality showed a complete divide?

The ghosts of Gygax, Arneson, and Holmes should steal your dice.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tommy Brownell on August 17, 2012, 07:34:41 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572737
So tell me then, what prevents you from doing exactly what you described here in 3rd? There are rules for rolling attributes, there are races you can grab, classes you can select, gear you can pick up and shove off with. Hell there are even sample characters for each class you can grab and go. So tell me, what is the difference you are spurging over?


Feat trees and Prestige class requirements are the two obvious things that jump to mind.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 07:36:05 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572737
So tell me then, what prevents you from doing exactly what you described here in 3rd? There are rules for rolling attributes, there are races you can grab, classes you can select, gear you can pick up and shove off with. Hell there are even sample characters for each class you can grab and go. So tell me, what is the difference you are spurging over?



I'll use a pretty color to see if it works with you.

[size=11]In TSR AD&D, most everyone chooses what species they are (race) and what profession (class) and that's it.  Two choices made from a pool of only a half dozen or so available options.

In 3e, not only do you have the above, but then you have to select feats and skills from a list of hundreds of options.  Then as you level, you keep selecting from these lists, which also usually involves multi-classing into one or more of dozens and dozens of other classes/prestige classes.[/size]

Your false equivalency sucks dood.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 07:36:48 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572739
I noticed that my comment about the google search was ignored by the denner crowd.  If TSR era D&D does in fact use character builds, then how come every single reference to character builds in D&D are exclusive to 3e and 4e?

Have we really gotten to the point where people are legitimately trying to argue that the term "character build" is the same in AD&D as well as 3e/4e, despite reality showed a complete divide?

The ghosts of Gygax, Arneson, and Holmes should steal your dice.
It's not that I ignored it. I just don't think "character building" is something exclusive to 3e/4e or even DnD in general. I could seriously make a thread right now asking for higher than 1st level 0,1 and 2e characters and I'm sure people will be able to make them. Excuse me "build" them just as effectively as there are people who can build 3/4e characters. SO unless there's a special definition you're going to give me for "build" I'm not really sure what the argument is.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 07:39:05 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572742
Your false equivalency sucks dood.
All you had to say is "3e/4e has more options for character creation by default". Which is true, and something I don't really see as a problem. Cue wambulance.

Edit: Also that doesn't give me your definition of what you think a "build" is so way to miss the point tex.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 17, 2012, 07:40:17 PM
Quote
Evoker 5 Incantatrix 7
Variant: Focused Specialist (PHB2)
1 Evoker 1 Precise Shot, Point Blank Shot
2 Evoker 2
3 Evoker 3 Iron Will
4 Evoker 4
5 Evoker 5 Searing Spell (Sandstorm)
6 Incantatrix 1 Arcane Thesis Schorching Ray, Burning Spell (Sandstorm)
7 Incantatrix 2
8 Incantatrix 3
9 Incantatrix 4 Empower Spell, Extend Spell
10 Incantatrix 5 Twin Spell
11 Incantatrix 6
12 Incantatrix 7 Quicken Spell, Persistent Spell


Prohibited: Necromancy, Enchantment, Conjuration, Illusion*
*Gained with Incantatrix.


Spells per Day (Including Bonus spells, specialization, and focused specialist, 26 INT)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 9 9 9 8 7 6

@ Three Fights Per Day

Round 1
6th Twinned Empowered Searing Burning Scorching Ray = (12d6)*1.5+12+12d6 = 117 average damage.
6th Quickened Empowered Searing Burning Scorching Ray = 12d6*1.5+12 = 75

Round 2:
5th Twinned Searing Burning Scorching Ray = 12d6+12+12d6 = 96 average damage.
5th Quickened Searing Burning Scorching Ray = 12d6*1.5+12 = 75

Round 3:
4th Twinned Searing Burning Scorching Ray: 12d6+12d6 = 84
4th Quickened Searing Burning Scorching Ray: 12d6+12 = 54

Round 4:
3rd Empowered Searing Burning Scorching Ray = 12d6*1.5+12 = 75

==================================================
Quote
"It sure would be nice to find Gauntlets of Ogre Power for my fighter."

Yah...I can see how totally similar those are.  What were we thinking?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 07:41:28 PM
Quote from: gleichman;572738
If I may offer some advice...

All that you said about Marleycat is is very true. All she's done is found what she thinks is the dominate clique here on the therpgsite (the Benoist/Sacrosanct/Declan MacManus bully group to point out the worst of the lot as I've left a few people out and the group has a number of satellites who in effect are just slightly different flavors of Marleycat) and sucked up to them by echoing their opinions and jumping in to attack people they're already attacking.

That specific group is really only about one thing- bullying and insulting anyone who plays the games according the rules, for different goals than them, and/or happen to be capable of handling systems more complex than they. They do this in a wolf pack style with little more then vulgar insults and ad hominem attacks. But that passes as reason for them. Since there's a bunch of them, they drown out their targets rather than engage them- and then proceed to pat themselves on their backs.

None of them are worth engaging with. I don't think I've ever seen a single one of them say something insightful. That is not their goal.

Therpgsite is mostly noise and flame, you have to search for the few posters who are worth talking to- the rest are best ignored. So state your opinion and then ignore them. Makes life easier.


I've only been here a few months and already I'm part of the oppressive dominant clique?  Woot!  Where's my badge?

My issue with the Denner crowd is that they are saying things objectively false and don't seem to have a clue with early editions or how they were played by the majority.  Any time you point this out, they either ignore it, shift the goalposts way out into left field, or engage in deliberate obtuseness.  You can look on this page as an example.

But hey, don't let that disrupt your bitching.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 07:43:09 PM
Quote from: CerilianSeeming;572746
Yah...I can see how totally similar those are.  What were we thinking?


I'm not sure what you're thinking. Why did in one example you have a full character and yet no full character in the second example just a question about gauntlets.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 07:43:30 PM
Very disingenuous defintions, which of course, is to be expected.

Lots of games have a point where you build a character, it's called character generation.

Where that differs from a "character build" is that even with the most detailed point-buy chargen, the choosing of anything other then skills or spells, frequently stops at that point.

You want to claim that me deciding that if I find the Cloudkill spell for my 1e caster that I intend on memorizing it, or that I plan to raise my Pistol Skill to 5 before my Pilot:Car skill is the same as planning out my entire character path from first inception like these CharOp builds here (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/3.5e_Character_Optimization)?

That's just ridiculous.

3e and 4e use the "MMOG Build" model of CharOp, complete with Traps, capacity to "Gimp Yourself", and in the case of 4e, "Nerfs to Builds" and patches that create new "Flavor of the Month Builds".  No other form of D&D or most other RPGs do this.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 17, 2012, 07:44:33 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572742
In TSR AD&D, most everyone chooses what species they are (race) and what profession (class) and that's it.  Two choices made from a pool of only a half dozen or so available options.

In 3e, not only do you have the above, but then you have to select feats and skills from a list of hundreds of options.  Then as you level, you keep selecting from these lists, which also usually involves multi-classing into one or more of dozens and dozens of other classes/prestige classes.

Your false equivalency sucks dood.


Maybe you're on the Ignore List?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 07:44:37 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572745
All you had to say is "3e/4e has more options for character creation by default". Which is true, and something I don't really see as a problem. Cue wambulance.

Edit: Also that doesn't give me your definition of what you think a "build" is so way to miss the point tex.


Say what now?  Look at my post that you quoted, and look at what part of your text I quoted that it was in response to.  Which part of your quote asked for my definition of a build?

Or are you some kind of time traveling troll that thinks I should answer a question before it was even asked.

Lay off the bath salts man.

But to answer you question, I already did several pages ago when I first brought up the google search.  You said you didn't ignore it, so obviously you read it.  Your answer was in that post.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 07:45:10 PM
I wonder if it's ok to troll two threads? MGuy's stupidity is too funny too completely ignore.  Is that wrong?  Or should I switch avatars or talk personal preferences concerning music?  I wonder given I'm just stupid.  Mguy says so, it must be true.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 07:48:29 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572748
I've only been here a few months and already I'm part of the oppressive dominant clique?  Woot!  Where's my badge?

My issue with the Denner crowd is that they are saying things objectively false and don't seem to have a clue with early editions or how they were played by the majority.  Any time you point this out, they either ignore it, shift the goalposts way out into left field, or engage in deliberate obtuseness.  You can look on this page as an example.

But hey, don't let that disrupt your bitching.

Sacro, at least as far as posts I've made that you've responded to, you have not once tried to show me as being "objectively false". Almost every time you respond to me it's with either a personal attack on my play style, shifting goal posts, strawman, or completely ignoring most of my posts. I don't know why you think you are crusading for "the truth" but I find the claim to be almost comiccally ironic considering what I've seen you post thus far.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 07:50:01 PM
Quote from: Rum Cove;572752
Maybe you're on the Ignore List?


That's not an option for a "denner". He is here to troll. At least his ignorance is humorous.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 07:52:49 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572753
Say what now?  Look at my post that you quoted, and look at what part of your text I quoted that it was in response to.  Which part of your quote asked for my definition of a build?

Or are you some kind of time traveling troll that thinks I should answer a question before it was even asked.

Lay off the bath salts man.

But to answer you question, I already did several pages ago when I first brought up the google search.  You said you didn't ignore it, so obviously you read it.  Your answer was in that post.


You should indeed read my post responding to yours. That's all you had to offer. TSR games had less options for players. 3rd has way more. That is literally all you said. You can still randomly roll your attributes, still pick a class, and still pick a race, and even pick up an already made character and be on your way. So you have a feat(s) and skill points to divvy up. That's just a few more options. So unless you're going to go into a conversation about more options being bad your big green text means nothing more as I pointed out and still doesn't offer an explanation for what a "build" is.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 07:54:45 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572739
I noticed that my comment about the google search was ignored by the denner crowd.  If TSR era D&D does in fact use character builds, then how come every single reference to character builds in D&D are exclusive to 3e and 4e?

Have we really gotten to the point where people are legitimately trying to argue that the term "character build" is the same in AD&D as well as 3e/4e, despite reality showed a complete divide?

The ghosts of Gygax, Arneson, and Holmes should steal your dice.


I graduated high school in 1997.  I played in a long-running game of 2nd edition that ended when we all went off to college.  While the internet was a thing in 1997, it was very different from the internet we all know and love.  

When I went to college, I stopped gaming for a time.  While I enjoyed second edition, I had grown tired of it.  The idea of picking up and starting another character just didn't seem very exciting.  I had other things to do.  

Later, my girlfriend went to study abroad in France.  We're married now, but we were just dating at the time.  We knew we were pretty serious, so I didn't play around.  I suddenly had a lot more free time.  Fortunately, this coincided with the release of 3rd edition.  Gaming stepped in to fill the void.  

This was around 2000.  The web was exploding.  I had a Geocities Page.  You know, like lots of other people.  I learned how to write in HTML.  People really did start putting things they liked on the web - but most companies didn't have a web presence.  Internet Boards were far from ubiquitous.  

So, if you don't find 'builds' for earlier editions online, you have to take into account that for most of 2nd edition's 'supported' lifespan, there was no internet.  

Then, you have to account for the fact that even if people were still playing 2nd edition in 2002 or 2005, that there were far more people playing 3rd edition at the time.  3.x was a major disruption in the gaming market.  I played with a bunch of people that preferred RIFTs or ShadowRun, but 3.x was THE GAME that they could get players for.  

Then, after that, you have to recognize that D&D has a lot more options than other editions.  Now, I personally think that's a good thing.  While there are a lot of crap options, it's nice to play a fighter that's different from another fighter beyond what weapon they use.  

Builds in earlier editions, while they existed, were much more limited.  With fewer options there are fewer decision points.  With fewer decision points, there is less variation between characters.  With less variation between characters, the differences between 'builds' are relatively minor.  

So, in any case, the argument on one side seems to be that there was never a 'build' online for 2nd edition anywhere.  Finding one, even one would show that argument to be false.  

The other side of the argument seems to be saying that whenever you make choices, you are making a 'build'.  While some think that's too permissive a definition, that just puts us on a spectrum.  

If deciding what boots to wear doesn't mean you're making a 'build', why does choosing 'weapon focus' or 'power attack' mean you're making a 'build'?  Does it matter if you've planned out advancement more than one level ahead?  Does it matter if your plan is not impacted by play?  

Those might be reasonable objections to certain player's play styles (from a personal preference point of view), but they don't address the issue of trying to make 'effective' characters.  

You can be a good role player and use a 'build'.  Not every 'build' needs to be 'optimal'.  Most 'optimizers' actually don't play the 'best' character they can think of - they play an interesting character concept and then try to 'break' it - ie, make it so effective that it 'wins' the game.  That is not necessarily because they're gamist assholes, either.  Sometimes, their characters just have really difficult goals, and being effective in multiple arenas helps them accomplish those objectives.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 07:56:06 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572750
Very disingenuous defintions, which of course, is to be expected.

Lots of games have a point where you build a character, it's called character generation.

Where that differs from a "character build" is that even with the most detailed point-buy chargen, the choosing of anything other then skills or spells, frequently stops at that point.

You want to claim that me deciding that if I find the Cloudkill spell for my 1e caster that I intend on memorizing it, or that I plan to raise my Pistol Skill to 5 before my Pilot:Car skill is the same as planning out my entire character path from first inception like these CharOp builds here (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/3.5e_Character_Optimization)?

That's just ridiculous.

3e and 4e use the "MMOG Build" model of CharOp, complete with Traps, capacity to "Gimp Yourself", and in the case of 4e, "Nerfs to Builds" and patches that create new "Flavor of the Month Builds".  No other form of D&D or most other RPGs do this.

So your problem is "Character Optimization" in a nutshell. What exactly is it about other people making character op builds that is getting your panties in a twist? What exactly makes it worse that in later editions you can do more character opting than in older editions? Does having more options really piss people off that much?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 07:56:11 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572757
Sacro, at least as far as posts I've made that you've responded to, you have not once tried to show me as being "objectively false". Almost every time you respond to me it's with either a personal attack on my play style, shifting goal posts, strawman, or completely ignoring most of my posts. I don't know why you think you are crusading for "the truth" but I find the claim to be almost comiccally ironic considering what I've seen you post thus far.



:rotfl::rotfl:

You accusing someone of using strawmen and shifting goal posts and then using the word "ironic" in the same sentence.

Dude, go back and reread that wiz v fighter thread.  You HAVE to be on something.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 08:00:22 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572761
I graduated high school in 1997.  I played in a long-running game of 2nd edition that ended when we all went off to college.  While the internet was a thing in 1997, it was very different from the internet we all know and love.  

When I went to college, I stopped gaming for a time.  While I enjoyed second edition, I had grown tired of it.  The idea of picking up and starting another character just didn't seem very exciting.  I had other things to do.  

Later, my girlfriend went to study abroad in France.  We're married now, but we were just dating at the time.  We knew we were pretty serious, so I didn't play around.  I suddenly had a lot more free time.  Fortunately, this coincided with the release of 3rd edition.  Gaming stepped in to fill the void.  

This was around 2000.  The web was exploding.  I had a Geocities Page.  You know, like lots of other people.  I learned how to write in HTML.  People really did start putting things they liked on the web - but most companies didn't have a web presence.  Internet Boards were far from ubiquitous.  

So, if you don't find 'builds' for earlier editions online, you have to take into account that for most of 2nd edition's 'supported' lifespan, there was no internet.  

Then, you have to account for the fact that even if people were still playing 2nd edition in 2002 or 2005, that there were far more people playing 3rd edition at the time.  3.x was a major disruption in the gaming market.  I played with a bunch of people that preferred RIFTs or ShadowRun, but 3.x was THE GAME that they could get players for.  

Then, after that, you have to recognize that D&D has a lot more options than other editions.  Now, I personally think that's a good thing.  While there are a lot of crap options, it's nice to play a fighter that's different from another fighter beyond what weapon they use.  

Builds in earlier editions, while they existed, were much more limited.  With fewer options there are fewer decision points.  With fewer decision points, there is less variation between characters.  With less variation between characters, the differences between 'builds' are relatively minor.  

So, in any case, the argument on one side seems to be that there was never a 'build' online for 2nd edition anywhere.  Finding one, even one would show that argument to be false.  

The other side of the argument seems to be saying that whenever you make choices, you are making a 'build'.  While some think that's too permissive a definition, that just puts us on a spectrum.  

If deciding what boots to wear doesn't mean you're making a 'build', why does choosing 'weapon focus' or 'power attack' mean you're making a 'build'?  Does it matter if you've planned out advancement more than one level ahead?  Does it matter if your plan is not impacted by play?  

Those might be reasonable objections to certain player's play styles (from a personal preference point of view), but they don't address the issue of trying to make 'effective' characters.  

You can be a good role player and use a 'build'.  Not every 'build' needs to be 'optimal'.  Most 'optimizers' actually don't play the 'best' character they can think of - they play an interesting character concept and then try to 'break' it - ie, make it so effective that it 'wins' the game.  That is not necessarily because they're gamist assholes, either.  Sometimes, their characters just have really difficult goals, and being effective in multiple arenas helps them accomplish those objectives.


All this is well and good except for the following:

People have been having D&D discussions on the internet long before 3e came out.  "No internet"?  Heh.

People still play AD&D in the tens of thousands, and there are currently many sites devoted to TSR era D&D right now.  You know what?  Still no references to character builds.

That term is one associated with 3e and 4e in near singularity (in the context of D&D). It is a really sad day when you are in all seriousness trying to equate that term as same same between AD&D and WotC D&D.

The term "character build" means something.  Something we all know the context of.  You can't just go changing the definition because without doing so your argument holds no merit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 08:04:18 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572763
:rotfl::rotfl:

You accusing someone of using strawmen and shifting goal posts and then using the word "ironic" in the same sentence.

Dude, go back and reread that wiz v fighter thread.  You HAVE to be on something.


Let's see. Ad hominen attack. Directing me to go read the Wiz v Fighter thread for... Some kind of proof I'm supposed to drag back here for whatever reason. I'm going to abstain from the Wiz v Fighter thread. It keeps going through this cycle where I make a point, people throw all kinds of logical falacies at what I say, get into some side conversation/tell me that pre3e is way better/ad hominems, circle jerk on that for a bit, I point out how this and that are wrong and circle jerking is lame, angry retorts, sleep/work, come back and repeat. So no, I've had enough. Everyone in that thread that I was arguing with has either admitted they expect magiced out fighters (via items), they ignore/change the rules at their leisure, or some variation of ad hominem attack on me. There's really nothing else to argue about there since I was only arguing about the actual rules of the game.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 08:06:41 PM
Well, if that's all it takes.

I googled 'AD&D, character build'.  

The first link was to this page:

http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-560160.html

While most of the posters tell the OP that 'builds' are not really a thing in earlier editions, one poster suggests a combination from the Humanoid Handbook.  Another points out the advantages of being a half-elf ranger/cleric.  

Did some more looking, and this is a pretty interesting thread:

D&D 1st & 2nd Edition Optimization
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10675.0

One of the first things they point out is the advantages of the rate of fire for darts.  I remember hearing about that on a recent thread here, too.  About how it was 'superior' to other options....  Almost like someone was optimizing...  

I must be crazy, though.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 08:08:30 PM
I'm convinced that you are trolling.  Good job. You got me.  I admit.  I have to believe this, because the alternative makes me weep for you.

Are you seriously saying that you haven't shifted goalposts, used strawmen, and been deliberately obtuse?  

Oh, but you won't read that thread because in doing so would show you the several times people have called you on your errors.

You have a lot of denial going on.  You might convince yourself, but everyone else isn't.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 08:08:50 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572762
So your problem is "Character Optimization" in a nutshell. What exactly is it about other people making character op builds that is getting your panties in a twist? What exactly makes it worse that in later editions you can do more character opting than in older editions? Does having more options really piss people off that much?

Actually no.  What goes on at your table is cool, I don't care.  If you'll recall, I was the one who said 3e didn't make you an asshole.

I don't have a problem with CharOp per se.  I think it's pretty obvious where the source and culture comes from (ie CCGs/MMOGs), and I think that has led to a culture of expectations of "Rules over Setting".   I also think it has led to a culture of playing the game from a mechanical metagame viewpoint, which is not how I prefer to roleplay.  You planning out your next 20 characters from 1st to 40th using every edge case in 75 splats doesn't bother me in the least, because you won't be doing it at my table.

What I do have a problem with is...
1. The idea that if a GM decides this option doesn't fit in with his world that he is a Shit GM, cockblocker, tyrant, whatever.  Simply not true, as the quote from the 3.5 DM's Guide proves.
2. The recent claim here that 1e had character builds just like 3e, no, that's simply incorrect.  Nothing even remotely close.

Each edition of D&D has been it's own game, and should be talked about on it's own merits, especially 3rd and 4th, the most divergent editions by far.  I don't where the need for the "But 1e is like that too." argument comes from.  Let your 3e arguments stand on their own.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 08:10:44 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572767
Well, if that's all it takes.

I googled 'AD&D, character build'.  

The first link was to this page:

http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-560160.html

While most of the posters tell the OP that 'builds' are not really a thing in earlier editions, one poster suggests a combination from the Humanoid Handbook.  Another points out the advantages of being a half-elf ranger/cleric.  

Did some more looking, and this is a pretty interesting thread:

D&D 1st & 2nd Edition Optimization
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10675.0

One of the first things they point out is the advantages of the rate of fire for darts.  I remember hearing about that on a recent thread here, too.  About how it was 'superior' to other options....  Almost like someone was optimizing...  

I must be crazy, though.


:D  You did exactly what I was thinking you would do.  Nice little disingenuous trick there, but I saw what you did.  You limited your search to AD&D only and omitted the other editions.

Just type "D&D character builds" and see what comes up.  Go ahead.  In the first 100 results, how many are TSR era D&D?

You'll also note that I've never said absolutes.  I've said "nearly all", or "vast majority".  Which is true if you do a search objectively.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 08:10:48 PM
I think the real reason you don't see bulds for pre 3e is because player empowerment is a newer feature in later editions and since prior to 3rd GMs religiously shut people down (and in fact the books encourage them to do this) anytime they get ahead it is probably in the heads of most that charOp is useless since most GMs are ironfisted tyrants at the game table and "fuck you for doing something clever with the rules without my express written consent!". That whole thing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 08:11:07 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572767
Well, if that's all it takes.

I googled 'AD&D, character build'.  

The first link was to this page:

http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-560160.html

While most of the posters tell the OP that 'builds' are not really a thing in earlier editions, one poster suggests a combination from the Humanoid Handbook.  Another points out the advantages of being a half-elf ranger/cleric.  

Did some more looking, and this is a pretty interesting thread:

D&D 1st & 2nd Edition Optimization
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10675.0

One of the first things they point out is the advantages of the rate of fire for darts.  I remember hearing about that on a recent thread here, too.  About how it was 'superior' to other options....  Almost like someone was optimizing...  

I must be crazy, though.
I almost thought you knew something before 2000 AD how disappointing, seriously sir. Even I, stupid Marleycat called Benoist out about absolutes. I must be seriously retarded right?

I never game or anything. Those shoes and music are calling right?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 08:12:04 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572770
:D  You did exactly what I was thinking you would do.  Nice little disingenuous trick there, but I saw what you did.  You limited your search to AD&D only and omitted the other editions.

Just type "D&D character builds" and see what comes up.  Go ahead.  In the first 100 results, how many are TSR era D&D?

You'll also note that I've never said absolutes.  I've said "nearly all", or "vast majority".  Which is true if you do a search objectively.


Type in D&D at all and I think you'll find much fewer material at all for pre 3e games. What does that say about how obscure pre 3 dnd is? Can I use how unpopular it is to start making negative claims about it?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 17, 2012, 08:15:48 PM
CRKrueger seems to have said that.  

But if I use D&D (which is pretty generic) the results for earlier editions will be buried.  In large part because the search results are designed to pull more recent things first, and the more links that connect them to other things increases their relevance.  

Since 3.x is much, much, much, much, much, much, more popular than 2nd edition today (even though neither one is a supported edition) you'd expect the results to dominate (after 4th edition of course) in the first several pages.  

The fact that I know how to use a search engine to pull 'relevant' results doesn't discount the fact that such results exist.  

And of course, as a matter of good form, I provided the search keywords I used, but if I found those pages on page 400 of the search results, how does that invalidate the point that 'optimization' and 'builds' were a thing in earlier editions?  

I admit - there are fewer decision points in earlier editions.  With fewer decisions to consider, it's easier to come to a satisfying 'character'.  If there are a lot of bad choices, you might want to ask smart people.  

Usually, the way to ask is 'I want to do this thing, but I don't want to suck.  How do I do it well?'  

Most char-opers don't say 'I want to destroy the world and be invincible.  How can I do that?'  

Being challenged is fun.  Making an effective character can be fun, too.  

People have been doing that in all editions of the game.  

Anyone who has ever researched a 'unique' spell is guilty of some kind of 'build' infraction...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 08:16:01 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572771
I think the real reason you don't see bulds for pre 3e is because player empowerment is a newer feature in later editions and since prior to 3rd GMs religiously shut people down (and in fact the books encourage them to do this) anytime they get ahead it is probably in the heads of most that charOp is useless since most GMs are ironfisted tyrants at the game table and "fuck you for doing something clever with the rules without my express written consent!". That whole thing.


See, this is another example of you not only being objectively wrong, but making claims to something you have a clue about.  Right on cue, you provided another example and I didn't even need to go look one up.

Why?  Because like I already said twice in this thread, AD&D was all about player entitlement.  It wasn't about character entitlement, but that's different.  Players were actively encouraged to come up with creative ways of doing things, and were rewarded for doing so.

So why would you repeat this inaccuracy if it's already been dispelled?

And secondly, you said no less than four times that you only barely played 2e and never played 1e before, so how in the world would you know what the attitude was toward player entitlement?

You don't.  You are once again just talking out of your ass with nothing to back you up.  So bad so, that you're continuing to parrot talking points that are objectively false.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 08:16:20 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572767
Almost like someone was optimizing...
So I optimize by...
1. Taking the Dart Proficiency during Character Creation.
2. If I'm a fighter, specialize.
3. Buy darts.

Yeah, you're right, that's totally the same thing as Glaive of the Dungeon Crasher Build (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Glaive_of_the_Dungeon_Crasher_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)).

Every game has choices, making effective choices is Optimization.  That is not a "Character Build", which is dependent on specific paths and choices taken across the life of a character to achieve a desired end goal, vis-a-vis MMOG characters.

I don't know why you guys always go to "1e too." and prevaricate.  Just make your arguments honestly and stand by them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 17, 2012, 08:19:32 PM
LOL.  The first link is a 3.5 player.  The second one includes a guy who counts weapon specialization -three times- in a single attempted 'build'...and doesn't even get all of them right on an individual basis.  So much for 'Brilliant Gameologists'.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 17, 2012, 08:21:00 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572769

I don't have a problem with CharOp per se.  I think it's pretty obvious where the source and culture comes from (ie CCGs/MMOGs),


I think that could be debated. Mind you, I'm not interested in debating it- but asserting there's a link is far from proving it. I can easily see 3.x as a natural outgrowth of 2E skills systems and weapon proficiencies myself.

Quote from: CRKrueger;572769

and I think that has led to a culture of expectations of "Rules over Setting".


Not really possible for players who view the system mechanics as the physics of the setting. The two are always the same in their mind.

Quote from: CRKrueger;572769

I also think it has led to a culture of playing the game from a mechanical metagame viewpoint, which is not how I prefer to roleplay.


Again, not really possible for those who view the system mechanics as the physics of the setting. People in that world would know that future greatness depends upon today's planning in a way that does not hit home in our forgiving and non-magical culture.

All this depends of course on the characters being aware of classes, feats, and the like. A mindset that I could never manage myself, but not one that I would claim is impossible for others.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 08:21:28 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572771
I think the real reason you don't see bulds for pre 3e is because player empowerment is a newer feature in later editions and since prior to 3rd GMs religiously shut people down (and in fact the books encourage them to do this) anytime they get ahead it is probably in the heads of most that charOp is useless since most GMs are ironfisted tyrants at the game table and "fuck you for doing something clever with the rules without my express written consent!". That whole thing.

Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck
(http://www.mytwoemptypockets.com/.a/6a014e60533b57970c0153913b3e5f970b-250wi)

Guess the whole presenting your case honestly thing was too much for you, huh?  You going to start translating now, or just leave the thread crying?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 08:24:13 PM
For all that is holy, I hope this can finally end this line of discussion.

From the D&D wiki:

Build
    Preplanned character progression, choosing when feats, etc., are taken. Often done with the assistance of "build planner" software or websites.


I think it's pretty obvious that TSR era D&D did not have builds.  The very first sentence (preplanned character progression) didn't really occur until 3e.  Oh, I'm sure maybe 0.5% of the AD&D players preplanned out every level of their character, but the game wasn't designed to support that because you never knew what you get as you adventured.

It's painfully obvious that character builds didn't start until 3e.  Good for it.  This is a clear case of someone saying they don't like character build mechanics and some idiot in a fit of defensiveness like they were just personally insulted saying "But your game has them too" when it's clearly not the case.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 08:25:16 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572773
Type in D&D at all and I think you'll find much fewer material at all for pre 3e games. What does that say about how obscure pre 3 dnd is? Can I use how unpopular it is to start making negative claims about it?

You could but you would be wrong and provably so. Try it I need more laughs. Or is my music wrong or do I have the wrong shoes? The wrong avatar?  Seriously please educate me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 08:29:24 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572784
You could but you would be wrong and provably so. Try it I need more laughs. Or is my music wrong or do I have the wrong shoes? Seriously please educate me.


Interestingly, I just typed in "D&D" to see what would happen.

The first result that specified a particular edition (rather than generic D&D like WOTC or the wiki)?

Holmes Basic D&D at the number 4 overall spot.  A 3.5e character generator was at #6.

So I guess that shoots his theory out of the water.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 08:33:13 PM
Quote from: gleichman;572781
I think that could be debated. Mind you, I'm not interested in debating it- but asserting there's a link is far from proving it. I can easily see 3.x as a natural outgrowth of 2E skills systems and weapon proficiencies myself.
Did the idea start back then with tail-end TSR? Sure, I'll give you that, but WotC D&D definitely absorbed the newer rule structures.  I play enough MMOGs to know a standard Build Tree when I see it.

Quote from: gleichman;572781
Not really possible for players who view the system mechanics as the physics of the setting. The two are always the same in their mind.

Again, not really possible for those who view the system mechanics as the physics of the setting. People in that world would know that future greatness depends upon today's planning in a way that does not hit home in our forgiving and non-magical culture.

All this depends of course on the characters being aware of classes, feats, and the like. A mindset that I could never manage myself, but not one that I would claim is impossible for others.
Come on.  I know these Denners are kind of becoming ersatz allies in an "enemy of my enemy" sense, but do you really think someone going for the Low-Level Nova Build (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Low_Level_Nova_(3.5e_Optimized_Build)) is really roleplaying the way you do at your table, or even thinking as their character at all?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 08:33:51 PM
Quote from: CerilianSeeming;572780
LOL.  The first link is a 3.5 player.  The second one includes a guy who counts weapon specialization -three times- in a single attempted 'build'...and doesn't even get all of them right on an individual basis.  So much for 'Brilliant Gameologists'.


I guess it was those "hard leather" shoes. They're called Nike's currently.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 17, 2012, 08:47:13 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572789
Did the idea start back then with tail-end TSR? Sure, I'll give you that, but WotC D&D definitely absorbed the newer rule structures.  I play enough MMOGs to know a standard Build Tree when I see it.

I think at the early release of 3rd edition, MMORPGs (like EQ) were still solidly class based and didn't have build trees for the most part. But I'm not a MMORPG gaming history buff. All I can say is that I (sadly) brought 3.0 when it was released and I didn't get the vibe that they had done anything more than answer demands for more customized characters.

Quote from: CRKrueger;572789
Come on.  I know these Denners are kind of becoming ersatz allies in an "enemy of my enemy" sense, but do you really think someone going for the Low-Level Nova Build (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Low_Level_Nova_(3.5e_Optimized_Build)) is really roleplaying the way you do at your table, or even thinking as their character at all?

Likely not, however there may well be exceptions and they should not be ignore or lumped in with those who are metagaming.

In addition, there are likely those players who having completed the character generation step then go on adventures just like the rest of the RPG gaming world and may even do so IC. You likely couldn't tell them apart from your own gaming group if you were watching.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 08:58:03 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572782
Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck Nyuck
(http://www.mytwoemptypockets.com/.a/6a014e60533b57970c0153913b3e5f970b-250wi)

Guess the whole presenting your case honestly thing was too much for you, huh?  You going to start translating now, or just leave the thread crying?


I'm going to leave the thread crying because... you posted a picture? Or am I going to leave the thread because people are winding up to do the thing I outlined earlier that people do on this board?
Case in point:
Quote
See, this is another example of you not only being objectively wrong, but making claims to something you have a clue about.
I'm wrong somehow let's see why.

Quote
Because like I already said twice in this thread, AD&D was all about player entitlement.
Could've sworn I used the words player empowerment. Should I count this as goal post shifting? Whatever. Let's see..

Quote
Players were actively encouraged to come up with creative ways of doing things, and were rewarded for doing so.
By whom? The GM right? Your clever plan only worked if the GM gave the ok I believe.

Now the really funny thing about bringing up entitlement is that I believe that there have been several posts shaming people for feeling entitled by the pro pre 3e crowd. I'm sure I can find a quote or two with a simple search. Like Here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=571473&highlight=entitlement#post571473) and Here (http://http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=571547&highlight=entitlement#post571547) and a delicious one Here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=568906&highlight=entitlement#post568906). Oh my...

Quote
So why would you repeat this inaccuracy if it's already been dispelled?
By not having said shit about entitlement in the first place I guess, which I already did...

Quote
And secondly, you said no less than four times that you only barely played 2e and never played 1e before, so how in the world would you know what the attitude was toward player entitlement?
Reading the posts of people like Benoist, you, and other people who espouse how there wasn't no shit in pre 3e games cause of this reason and that.
 

However this is expected and so is the rest: CRK - personal attack, Marley - Says nothing of value. Blah blah blah sticking to the cycle. As for the D&D search coming up with the wiki and other shit at the top of the list we should keep in mind (or at least those actually reading, I said "more material". but whatever. None of this really matters.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 09:15:31 PM
I posted the link showing exactly how detailed and different a 3e style "Character Build" is from earlier editions' chargen.

You ask me what my problem is with CharOp.

I answer, specifically not insulting you, however pointing out that once again extending your argument from 3e to all editions is incorrect and does you no favors.

You respond with nonsensical echo-chamber "1e DM Tyrant" crap, so I responded in kind.  Maybe you were responding to Sacro, not me, dunno.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 09:24:10 PM
This is awesome, but please wait ....I have to make sure I have the correct shoes on....again what were you saying?  Those shoes hurt my brain, I apologize, seriously I do.  

If you would just for me, as a favor mind you. Explain this Dnd thing to me. Not that 3x stuff but the OTHER stuff that has lasted say.......30-40 years?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 17, 2012, 09:36:29 PM
Well, I've been convinced that yes indeed, 3e is the game of choice for certain assholes after reading all the smug idiocy promulgated by these retarded baboons. There's absolutely no end to the feces that pours out of their gaping head wounds. No end. A Kali Yuga narcissistic mouth-to-anus shit ouroborous.

What a bunch of fucking entitled babies. "I'm owed victory!"

And holy fuck, their idea of fantasy adventure seems to be an affliction t-shirt with the soul of an actuary. FLYING FUCKING DOOM FORTRESSES AND FLYING ARCHERS but make sure it's a fair, fun experience where we don't have to the possibility of an unfun totally stupid wrongheaded defeat.

Fuck, just watch Commando or Machete while holding a video game controller and fool yourself into thinking "THAT'S MY AWESOME BUILD!! KICKING ASS!!"

These assholes deserve each-other. I'm thrilled that these jackholes are too good for early D&D games.

I've had the misfortune of playing 3E with exactly one of these spazzs' before. Everyone else in our game group has said that they never want to play with someone like that again.

Leave the Hall?!?! These dumfucks don't even have any idea where the hall is...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 09:46:15 PM
Quote from: Planet Algol;572803
Well, I've been convinced that yes indeed, 3e is the game of choice for certain assholes after reading all the smug idiocy promulgated by these retarded baboons. There's absolutely no end to the feces that pours out of their gaping head wounds. No end. A Kali Yuga narcissistic mouth-to-anus shit ouroborous.

What a bunch of fucking entitled babies. "I'm owed victory!"

And holy fuck, their idea of fantasy adventure seems to be an affliction t-shirt with the soul of an actuary. FLYING FUCKING DOOM FORTRESSES AND FLYING ARCHERS but make sure it's a fair, fun experience where we don't have to the possibility of an unfun totally stupid wrongheaded defeat.

Fuck, just watch Commando or Machete while holding a video game controller and fool yourself into thinking "THAT'S MY AWESOME BUILD!! KICKING ASS!!"

These assholes deserve each-other. I'm thrilled that these jackholes are too good for early D&D games.

I've had the misfortune of playing 3E with exactly one of these spazzs' before. Everyone else in our game group has said that they never want to play with someone like that again.

Leave the Hall?!?! These dumfucks don't even have any idea where the hall is...


Hold on let me call the wambulence. Seriously did a 3E kil your dog or something.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 09:46:47 PM
Should I consider it a victory that I think of Mguy exactly as he thinks of me? Seriously the utter nonsense that spews out of his mouth is incredible in it's stupidity and lack of understanding of the "hidden middle" like myself.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 17, 2012, 09:51:30 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572771
I think the real reason you don't see bulds for pre 3e is because player empowerment is a newer feature in later editions


If by "player empowerment" you mean "the expectation that the players have a God-given right to everything that's spelled out in the book and any GM who cheats them of a treasure parcel or PrC is a cunt", I agree.

Quote from: MGuy;572771
and since prior to 3rd GMs religiously shut people down (and in fact the books encourage them to do this) anytime they get ahead it is probably in the heads of most that charOp is useless since most GMs are ironfisted tyrants at the game table and


So this is where the bad GM touched you. Awww poor widdle baby.

Quote from: MGuy;572771
"fuck you for doing something clever with the rules


More like "I am not impressed by your mastery of the rules." I'm not really a grognard, I just play one on the Internet, but old school RPG groups actually have a long and honored tradition of cultivating and rewarding player skill, earning us the endless scorn of story-lovers. Only we expect players to do clever things with the game world; rules are seen as a tool to emulate a world and its denizens, and little more. They're a vital instrument, but not at all the focus of old school gaming. Mastering them is not an impressive achievement on the old school playbook.

Killing a 16 HD green dragon with your 9th-level fighter, three henchmen of middling level, a ballista, a grappling hook, a potion of flying and half a dozen flasks of lamp oil is more the sort of thing that earns my respect as a GM.

"Hey, you guys, I just figured out the right PrC and feats combo to attack 88 times per round at +100 each" just proves that you have too much time on your hands (which probably amounts to you being a virgin), or that you're an idiot savant.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 17, 2012, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572807
Hold on let me call the wambulence. Seriously did a 3E kil your dog or something.


Almost funny but you still are the "weakest link" try again please.  It humors me so please "hit me with your best shot".
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 09:53:53 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;572426
You're better than that joke, John.
Sometimes, you just pick the low hanging fruit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 09:54:09 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572797
I posted the link showing exactly how detailed and different a 3e style "Character Build" is from earlier editions' chargen.

You ask me what my problem is with CharOp.

I answer, specifically not insulting you, however pointing out that once again extending your argument from 3e to all editions is incorrect and does you no favors.

You respond with nonsensical echo-chamber "1e DM Tyrant" crap, so I responded in kind.  Maybe you were responding to Sacro, not me, dunno.
I was, in the post you are refering to, more talking to Sacro yes. I had no problems with your post prior because having a problem with people labeling a GM a dick for not having certain materials covered is something that's actually a bad thing and I don't agree with people who do that. I also don't think that character building is "exactly" the same because the systems are different and they can't be exactly the same. but "building" a character in one is not different "enough" that I would label one kind of character building as worse than another.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 17, 2012, 09:54:26 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572807
Hold on let me call the wambulence. Seriously did a 3E kil your dog or something.

Scorn =/= Whine

I actually enjoyed playing 3E despite how the math slows the game down and I would play it again as opposed to 4E.

But, I have had the misfortune of playing with a powergaming charop guy and it's was absolutely fucking terrible. Dragging in splats every week and whining at the DM trying to get him to incorporate them in the campaign so he could have a Cleric with the Celerity domain and the like. Never shutting his cocksucker with his directions on how the other players should play. Always trying to overrule the DM and trying to enforce his own blatantly wrong upon actually reading the rules, rules-interpetations.

You assholes sound just like him.

Show me where the bad DM touched you? I'll show you where the bad charop asshole touched me, he touched my weekly, fun-between-friends D&D game with his poisonous powergaming bullshit, and we all never will allow him, or anyone who operates under his paradigm, at our table again.

But thanks, I knew I forgot one of you fucking baboons when I was firing up my ignore list.

Goodbye Lord Moron.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 09:55:22 PM
Quote from: Planet Algol;572467
No rails indeed...
If there is one thing this thread has taught us, it's that internal consistency is for pussies.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 17, 2012, 09:58:10 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;572814
If there is one thing this thread has taught us, it's that internal consistency is for pussies.


I'm through with these jackasses, but that little gem really deserves more attention.

It's a perfect example of why I consider these baboons to be baboons.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 10:06:55 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572509
3.x, where every person is a sorcerer with extensive combat training in arms and armor.

Yeah, no thanks.
Well, potential sorcerer with extensive combat training in arms and armour.

So, 3.x = The Matrix, I guess.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 10:07:05 PM
Alas, you continue to fail.

Quote from: MGuy;572794


 Could've sworn I used the words player empowerment. Should I count this as goal post shifting? Whatever. Let's see..


Personally, I don't think there is much functional difference in the context of those two words, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that they mean completely different things.  You said you read my posts and don't ignore them, so I assume you read this one:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;572243
You have it right.  Only the opposite.  Not a big shocker that you'd be totally wrong with this.

See, "grognards" are completely for player empowerment.  In fact, it's highly encouraged.  Creative ideas and role-playing were highly encouraged back in the day.  I find it a bit ironic that someone who favors WOTC D&D much more than TSR D&D would claim that grognards are against player empowerment when it's 3e that started with the whole "if you don't have a skill for it, you can't do it."


What word did I use there?  So even if I made a slight mistake and used entitlement instead of empowerment in the post you just quoted, obviously I had already said the exact same thing about empowerment--the word you *did* use.  

So no, no goal post shifting.  Nice try though.  
Quote


 By whom? The GM right? Your clever plan only worked if the GM gave the ok I believe.


Again, you never played it, by your own admission.  How do you know?

You don't.  You're parroting bullshit talking points that you heard in the den without knowing jack shit about what you're talking about.  Why do you keep repeating it when it's been objectively proven to be false?
Quote


Now the really funny thing about bringing up entitlement is that I believe that there have been several posts shaming people for feeling entitled by the pro pre 3e crowd. I'm sure I can find a quote or two with a simple search. Like Here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=571473&highlight=entitlement#post571473) and Here (http://http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=571547&highlight=entitlement#post571547) and a delicious one Here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=568906&highlight=entitlement#post568906). Oh my...

 By not having said shit about entitlement in the first place I guess, which I already did...


My quote I just reposted above?  Makes all of this worthless bull.  Keep grasping at straws.

Quote


 

However this is expected and so is the rest: CRK - personal attack, Marley - Says nothing of value. Blah blah blah sticking to the cycle. As for the D&D search coming up with the wiki and other shit at the top of the list we should keep in mind (or at least those actually reading, I said "more material". but whatever. None of this really matters.


LOL.  speaking of cycle, do you ever get tired of saying something, being proven objectively wrong on it, and yet keep repeating it again* or shifting goal posts?**

*like admitting you've never played the game and yet keep saying things that aren't true as if they were about how the game was played

** like being proven how the google search blew your point out of the water and now you're changing the criteria yet again.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 10:08:46 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572521
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing you have ever said while being here. I'm impressed.
+1, beat me to it.

Quote from: Kaelik;572525
Just like you won't admit that you beat your wife?
Dipshit.

"Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?"

At least get the stupidity right.  How can you fuck that up?

Quote from: Sommerjon;572526
Even in your precious pre3e you love so much has  builds.  Want a particular weapon that 'fits' your ideal,  want  particular spells to fit your 'theme', have a particular 'catch phrase',  clothing, race, etc, etc.  Yeah, guess what that's all  build.  
 
 3e builds may be more math/RAW oriented, doesn't make them anymore wrong than a build pre3e.
Don't be stupid.  Especially when you have clearly never played a version prior to 3.x.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 10:10:35 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572525
Just like you won't admit that you beat your wife?
Dipshit.

"Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?"

At least get the stupidity right.  How can you fuck that up?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 10:11:41 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572526
Even in your precious pre3e you love so much has builds.  Want a particular weapon that 'fits' your ideal,  want particular spells to fit your 'theme', have a particular 'catch phrase', clothing, race, etc, etc.  Yeah, guess what that's all  build.  

3e builds may be more math/RAW oriented, doesn't make them anymore wrong than a build pre3e.
Don't be stupid.  Especially when you have clearly never played a version prior to 3.x.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 17, 2012, 10:11:51 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572817
speaking of cycle, do you ever get tired of saying something, being proven objectively wrong on it, and yet keep repeating it again* or shifting goal posts?**

Kali Yuga feces ouroborous...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 10:14:54 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572536
The mistake a lot of people start making is thinking that a character with a particular 'build' is necessarily more powerful than a character with a different build.
You mean like 'Wizards are more powerful than Fighters'?

Quote from: Sommerjon;572543
Really?

So just how much has changed in the last say 10 years for 1e or 2e?

Did I somehow lose my card because I only play for 6-8 sessions a year?

Just how much do you play, you know you who plays WoD or fantasy craft.  You ripping out multiple sessions a week on 2e?
So, you get out the bats and gloves once a year for the family reunion, and you think that makes you ready to play for the Yankees?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;572541
Since it seems relevant:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html
You do realize that Order of the Stick is parody, right?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572541
Since it seems relevant:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html
You do realize that Order of the Stick is parody, right?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 10:19:29 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572750
Very disingenuous defintions, which of course, is to be expected.

Lots of games have a point where you build a character, it's called character generation.

Where that differs from a "character build" is that even with the most detailed point-buy chargen, the choosing of anything other then skills or spells, frequently stops at that point.

You want to claim that me deciding that if I find the Cloudkill spell for my 1e caster that I intend on memorizing it, or that I plan to raise my Pistol Skill to 5 before my Pilot:Car skill is the same as planning out my entire character path from first inception like these CharOp builds here (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/3.5e_Character_Optimization)?

That's just ridiculous.

3e and 4e use the "MMOG Build" model of CharOp, complete with Traps, capacity to "Gimp Yourself", and in the case of 4e, "Nerfs to Builds" and patches that create new "Flavor of the Month Builds".  No other form of D&D or most other RPGs do this.

You're not talking 'build' you talking optimization.  However I can make 'builds' quite easily in 1e, which is why I find it laughable that everyone here says it never, never, never, happens ever.
Play a human in 1e take 7 levels of druid the rest as ranger.
Play a human in 1e take 2 levels of ranger the rest as rogue.
Play as an elf magic user/thief tailor your spells(as much as possible) to enhance your thief abilities.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 10:23:52 PM
Quote from: Planet Algol;572813
Scorn =/= Whine

I actually enjoyed playing 3E despite how the math slows the game down and I would play it again as opposed to 4E.

But, I have had the misfortune of playing with a powergaming charop guy and it's was absolutely fucking terrible. Dragging in splats every week and whining at the DM trying to get him to incorporate them in the campaign so he could have a Cleric with the Celerity domain and the like. Never shutting his cocksucker with his directions on how the other players should play. Always trying to overrule the DM and trying to enforce his own blatantly wrong upon actually reading the rules, rules-interpetations.

You assholes sound just like him.

Show me where the bad DM touched you? I'll show you where the bad charop asshole touched me, he touched my weekly, fun-between-friends D&D game with his poisonous powergaming bullshit, and we all never will allow him, or anyone who operates under his paradigm, at our table again.

But thanks, I knew I forgot one of you fucking baboons when I was firing up my ignore list.

Goodbye Lord Moron.


Wow so much butthurt. Endles rules arguments is A-list asshole behavior and I won't defend that, but the Celerity domain, that was too much for your fragile grognard heart. Oh no, the minmaxing swine is 10 feet faster than the other party members it must have been terrible. I'm not thinking this guy was a minmaxer just some asshole with alot of splatbooks.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 10:26:55 PM
I thought for sure I had posted an official definition of what the term "build" is, in the context of D&D.  Yep, I did.

Can someone please explain why there's still someone who is trying to say a character build is something it very clearly is not?

Christ on a pogo stick, I gave an official definition.  I pointed out how you practically never see anyone talking about character builds pre 3e based on google search results.  What more do I have to do?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 17, 2012, 10:27:30 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572812
but "building" a character in one is not different "enough" that I would label one kind of character building as worse than another.


Here we're just agreeing to disagree, I think it is substantively different.  However, being substantively different doesn't in and of itself, mean a value judgement.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 17, 2012, 10:27:30 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572827
I'm not thinking this guy was a minmaxer just some asshole with alot of splatbooks.


The line does get mighty thin at times.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 17, 2012, 10:28:54 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572614
Since noone reads my posts let me reiterate.
Sadly, we do.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 17, 2012, 10:30:49 PM
Quote from: Benoist;572731
AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAAH AHAHAHAHAH! Comedy GOLD, man!

I tell you "you don't understand what you are talking about (TSR D&D)" and your immediate reaction is to scream "onetrueway!"

Do you not see how completely stupid that response is?

By that yard stick you literally cannot NOT understand TSR D&D, because if I say you don't, it's "onetrueway". You can say whatever the fuck you want about the game now, like you're playing Mickey Mouse going into the Porn Business and that's D&D, because if I tell you "WTF dude do you understand the game?" then I'm guilty of "onetrueway".

That "onetrueway" concept has SO jumped the shark into completely ridiculous meme territory as to be completely hilarious. Please, go on. You entertain me! Dance, monkey. Dance!

Your response to anyone who does not share your playstyle of AD&D is:
"Man, you just understand fuck all about TSR D&D, don't you?"
That is onetruewayism.

You can have builds in TSR D&D.  Surprising isn't it.  You may delude yourself into thinking it never happens, or deflect it by spewing the "they have shitty players/DM" mantra you love, but guess what benny, 1e is dying, you're bearing the torch of a dead system, the osr movement failed, 5e ain't gonna be the next coming of AD&D(so much for pundit's influence).

When is that video of your 'actual play' coming out?  Stupefy us with your brilliance.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 10:36:12 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572834


You can have builds in TSR D&D.  .


No you can't!  Jesus, how dense are you?  Go read that definition.  That did not/does not happen in 1e.  It simply doesn't with maybe the exception of the one virgin in his parent's basement who pre-planned out the first 15 levels of his character (the same guy who cried when his PC died).  There's a reason, that even today, you practically never hear the term "character build" in reference to AD&D.

You didn't pick and choose what skills/feats you learned as you went up in levels.  They were the same by class for everyone.  You didn't start at level 15 or 20 and reverse engineer your way backwards to see what options you chose every time you gained a level.  That simply didn't happen with any statistical importance.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 10:37:29 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572817
Alas, you continue to fail.
Ugh. Again pointless exercise. Here we go again.
Quote

Personally, I don't think there is much functional difference in the context of those two words
There are. Entitlement means that players feel that they are entitled to something. That they just get something. Empowerment suggest players can make things happen. Thus why games like 3e which doesn't encourage GM wankery and has players advance or fail based on the rules of the game encourages empowerment.

What you're talking about is the GM deciding whether or not player's fail with the caveat that the GM should let the players pass if they meet that GM's qualifications. So no,  you ARE talking about something else.

Quote
Again, you never played it, by your own admission.  How do you know?
Played 2e, even if for a little while so I have that experience and the ability to read. However there are people who have and I can read their comments on this board. The comments on this board are do not support "entitlement" or "empowerment" and as I understand the posters I linked are 2e players and they say fuck entitlement.

Quote
 Why do you keep repeating it when it's been objectively proven to be false?
I don't know why I respond to you. Every time I take apart your argument you build a new one just as bad.


Quote
** like being proven how the google search blew your point out of the water and now you're changing the criteria yet again.

Exactly how did the google search blow what I actually said out of the water? I can still find more 3e material through a google search than 2e stuff. The fact that the first few results weren't dedicated to 3e doesn't really change that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 10:37:37 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572783

From the D&D wiki:

Build
    Preplanned character progression, choosing when feats, etc., are taken. Often done with the assistance of "build planner" software or websites.

.

Build
Preplanned character progression, choosing when feats, etc., are taken.  
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 17, 2012, 10:43:41 PM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572825
However I can make 'builds' quite easily in 1e, which is why I find it laughable that everyone here says it never, never, never, happens ever.


Am I to understand that those that agree with the thread title's assertion claim that what attracts them to 3e are builds and the only defense is "but there were builds before 3e"?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 17, 2012, 10:47:01 PM
Quote from: MGuy;572836
Ugh. Again pointless exercise. Here we go again.


No shit
Quote


 There are. Entitlement means that players feel that they are entitled to something. That they just get something. Empowerment suggest players can make things happen. Thus why games like 3e which doesn't encourage GM wankery and has players advance or fail based on the rules of the game encourages empowerment.

What you're talking about is the GM deciding whether or not player's fail with the caveat that the GM should let the players pass if they meet that GM's qualifications. So no,  you ARE talking about something else.


I already showed the quote I made where I said the exact same thing about empowerment.  You said you read the posts.  I made that post long before you made yours.  So no, I was talking about empowerment.  The question here is, after I made the comment about how AD&D encouraged empowerment and his statement was incorrect, why did you repeat the same thing he said that was already disproved?  I'll wait for you to answer that question.  Although I expect instead of answering it, I'll get another red herring.
Quote


 Played 2e, even if for a little while so I have that experience and the ability to read. However there are people who have and I can read their comments on this board. The comments on this board are do not support "entitlement" or "empowerment" and as I understand the posters I linked are 2e players and they say fuck entitlement.


LOL.  So you're argument is "I heard some people who hate AD&D say how AD&D was all about taking away player empowerment despite me never playing it, so it must be true"

Seriously?

Quote


 I don't know why I respond to you. Every time I take apart your argument you build a new one just as bad.


What argument did you take apart, exactly?  That I typed "entitlement" when I meant "empowerment" despite the fact that I made a very clear statement long before that I was talking about empowerment?  Throw entitlement out the window.  How about address what I said originally about empowerment?
Quote



Exactly how did the google search blow what I actually said out of the water? I can still find more 3e material through a google search than 2e stuff. The fact that the first few results weren't dedicated to 3e doesn't really change that.


You implied that google would return much more results for 3e and 4e since apparently according to DDM the internet never really existed until 2000, and therefore we shouldn't see too many results that showed "Character Builds" in AD&D.  The first edition specific result on google was Holmes Basic.  So yeah, that pretty much blew your theory out of the water.  Of course, it was blown out of the water anyway because you don't create character builds in AD&D, as has been pointed out already by the official definition of what a D&D build is.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 10:47:56 PM
Quote from: The Butcher;572831
The line does get mighty thin at times.


I had to look up the Celerity domain in my handy dandy Spell Compendium. It's not bad, but for minmaxed gamekilling Clerics I expect to see Divine Metamagic (Persist) at the minimum. Celerity domain though, I can only wonder why. Knowledge, Magic, Travel and War are all better and that's just in core. If you have the SC and are going for broke why not Planning or Spell.
I can see the game killing but not the minmaxer
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 17, 2012, 11:04:23 PM
Quote from: Rum Cove;572839
Am I to understand that those that agree with the thread title's assertion claim that what attracts them to 3e are builds and the only defense is "but there were builds before 3e"?


Quote from: Sacrosanct;572783
It's painfully obvious that character builds didn't start until 3e.  Good for it.  This is a clear case of someone saying they don't like character build mechanics and some idiot in a fit of defensiveness like they were just personally insulted saying "But your game has them too" when it's clearly not the case.


Close enough.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bloody Stupid Johnson on August 17, 2012, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572843
I had to look up the Celerity domain in my handy dandy Spell Compendium. It's not bad, but for minmaxed gamekilling Clerics I expect to see Divine Metamagic (Persist) at the minimum. Celerity domain though, I can only wonder why. Knowledge, Magic, Travel and War are all better and that's just in core. If you have the SC and are going for broke why not Planning or Spell.
I can see the game killing but not the minmaxer

The 3.0 version (Defenders of the Faith) was significantly stronger.
Same bonus spell list  - but haste is much better - and the granted power includes  a continual +2 enhancement to Dex and +2 on initative, as well as the speed bonus.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 11:25:36 PM
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;572862
The 3.0 version (Defenders of the Faith) was significantly stronger.
Same bonus spell list  - but haste is much better - and the granted power includes  a continual +2 enhancement to Dex and +2 on initative, as well as the speed bonus.


I see, that is pretty good but not really game breaking. 3.0 is haste is a ride on the crazy train though, If I DMed during 3.0 it would be the first thing on my ban list even before Planar Binding.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 17, 2012, 11:27:00 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572866
I see, that is pretty good but not really game breaking. 3.0 is haste is a ride on the crazy train though, If I DMed during 3.0 it would be the first thing on my ban list even before Planar Binding.

It absolutely came way the fuck after Planar Binding for me.

(By which I mean, I didn't even ban it, though... It did turn literally everything into haste vs haste.)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 17, 2012, 11:30:38 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;572868
It absolutely came way the fuck after Planar Binding for me.

(By which I mean, I didn't even ban it, though... It did turn literally everything into haste vs haste.)


I have a warped perspective on these things since I came in right after the edition shift (the first book I bought was the Complete Arcane)

Planar Binding ruined the first campain I played in so it earns a top spot on my ban list
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 17, 2012, 11:41:00 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572871
I have a warped perspective on these things since I came in right after the edition shift (the first book I bought was the Complete Arcane)

Planar Binding ruined the first campain I played in so it earns a top spot on my ban list


Strangely no one I've ever had at my table or that I've ever played at a table with ever used planar binding to do anything or ever cast it. I remember I did one time to see how it played early on in my career but the GM literally took that summon away almost as soon as I began to think of fun things to do with it so I was never inclined to use it again (and I didn't put it on my list in the Thunderdome).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 17, 2012, 11:44:16 PM
Quote from: Planet Algol;572803
And holy fuck, their idea of fantasy adventure seems to be an affliction t-shirt with the soul of an actuary. FLYING FUCKING DOOM FORTRESSES AND FLYING ARCHERS but make sure it's a fair, fun experience where we don't have to the possibility of an unfun totally stupid wrongheaded defeat.


I totally had that in my 0D&D game, right about the time 3e got started in 2000! The archers were flying on the Flying Doom Fortress right up until the time the PC's boarded the vessel when it was grounded for refit and resupply, and stole it! By the way, it took a fistful of willing Wizards to control the Giant Orb that powered this flying castle! It's maximum speed was about 10 mph.

(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t90/awi1777/FlyingFantasyShip3.jpg)

P.S. The players weren't entitled. They had to fight their way on, and make a clean getaway from a very angry council of wizards with a very long memory. Oh, but the fun they had once they started adventuring with it!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 12:00:24 AM
I can tell who's not at GenCon right now. Holy Cow! 20 pages of new posts in less than 24 hours, mostly about 3e wankery!

First time I heard of "Character Builds" being used is with 2e kits, skills, and powers. Never did play 2e, so it didn't really affect my games. It was a term that was used on Usenet, at rec.games.frp.dnd, and it was also used on some private websites. That was in the era of the great TSR digital takedowns though in the late 80's and early 90's, when TSR would have their legal team send a cease & desist to any player that posted just about anything related to D&D in it, in a vain attempt to maintain control of the RPG market. This had exactly the opposite effect of what they intended though, as tons of players and GM's jumped ship, and started playing other 3rd party RPGs.

Hmmm... wonder if there's some links with the first waves of those defectors to the rise of the Forge gamers.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 12:05:33 AM
What is this?  I leave for 30 minutes and everyone is all friends?  Whatever I guess.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 18, 2012, 12:05:46 AM
Quote from: GameDaddy;572885
First time I heard of "Character Builds" being used is with 2e kits, skills, and powers. Never did play 2e, so it didn't really affect my games.


I agree.  Skills and Powers in 2e really catered to that style of building.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 18, 2012, 12:08:10 AM
Quote from: Rum Cove;572887
I agree.  Skills and Powers in 2e really catered to that style of building.


Yes, and all the people who liked S&P moved on to 3e because they are almost the same ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 12:24:02 AM
Quote from: MGuy;572879
Strangely no one I've ever had at my table or that I've ever played at a table with ever used planar binding to do anything or ever cast it. I remember I did one time to see how it played early on in my career but the GM literally took that summon away almost as soon as I began to think of fun things to do with it so I was never inclined to use it again (and I didn't put it on my list in the Thunderdome).


Let me share my tale of woe.

The first campaign I played in involved my evoker realizing that evocation is bad in 3.5 and then trying out spells at random to see what sticks, eventually I ended up as a summoner. Then I cast Planar Binding, it was almost literally Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit as I called up a Ghaele Eladrin. We had just reach 11th level so the thing fought better than the Ranger and was a better caster than me or the Cleric. The question of "Why not summon the Angel?" hung over the campaign after that and we ended up disbading.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 12:50:50 AM
Quote from: vytzka;572599
Skills & Powers is a very fun book as long as no one is trying to be a douche about it.
Those books were essentially the dry run for 3rd Edition.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 18, 2012, 12:51:49 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572893
Let me share my tale of woe.

The first campaign I played in involved my evoker realizing that evocation is bad in 3.5 and then trying out spells at random to see what sticks, eventually I ended up as a summoner. Then I cast Planar Binding, it was almost literally Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit as I called up a Ghaele Eladrin. We had just reach 11th level so the thing fought better than the Ranger and was a better caster than me or the Cleric. The question of "Why not summon the Angel?" hung over the campaign after that and we ended up disbading.

Summoning was the first thing I did in D&D and I've loved it ever since. My Planar Binding  (first and last) was an inevitable. I was Lawful as shit (though not a paladin) and certain people were starting to piss me off (we couldn't ever "catch" the bad guy. SO I looked up the spell, looked up what I could summon with it and called it into action because it was faster and stronger than my group and could catch the ne'er do wells. The GM plot deviced it away as soon as I sent it after them through a portal. We entered right after it couldn't find it so I tossed up my hands in defeat and never used the spell since.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 12:56:54 AM
Quote from: CRKrueger;572640
If trolling itself were bannable half the "August Surprise" would be gone by now. :D
August Surprise, nothing.  There would be about three people posting here total.  :)

Quote from: MGuy;572724
Marleycat is not worth talking to. She actually  doesn't have any idea about what she's talking about, how reasoning  works, and can't parse the arguments of anybody who disagrees with her.  She has little more than nothing to add to any conversation that's not  about what music she likes or what her next avatar should be. You can  seriously ignore all the posts she makes and you won't miss a  thing.
There goes another irony meter.

Quote from: MGuy;572726
The only way you can't "build" your character in (at  least 2ed) is if you have some kind of odd definition of build. There  are books. THose books have classes in them. Those classes have  abilities you will eventually be able to choose from, the most damning  of which is the fighter who you'll most likely build to master a certain kind of weapon.
It's like Lewis Carroll is posting Jabberwocky.

Quote from: gleichman;572738
None of them are worth engaging with. I don't  think I've ever seen a single one of them say something insightful. That  is not their goal.
What pisses you off is that you don't have a clique formed around you.  Mostly because you have nothing worthwhile to say, but also because that shit doesn't happen here.

Quote
Therpgsite is mostly noise and flame, you have to search for the  few posters who are worth talking to- the rest are best ignored. So  state your opinion and then ignore them. Makes life easier.
Or you could stick to your echo chamber blog and just email people.   Save us from having to read about your bitterness and tears.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 01:03:29 AM
Quote from: MGuy;572724
Marleycat is not worth talking to. She actually doesn't have any idea about what she's talking about, how reasoning works, and can't parse the arguments of anybody who disagrees with her. She has little more than nothing to add to any conversation that's not about what music she likes or what her next avatar should be. You can seriously ignore all the posts she makes and you won't miss a thing.
There goes another irony meter.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 01:14:17 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572739
Have we really gotten to the point where people are legitimately trying to argue that the term "character build" is the same in AD&D as well as 3e/4e, despite reality showed a complete divide?

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
  The Dennerwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
  And burbled as it came!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 01:36:55 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;572896
Those books were essentially the dry run for 3rd Edition.
Your point being what?  Is 3x shit? Or the people that like it shit? Or is it mix? Just because I will give you all the rope you need sir.  Be exact yes? I know what you mean but explain for the stupid and the trolls. You do it so much better than myself, seriously.

Edit: Just a small favor...quit quoting Gleichman.  It's so much better when I know my IL is working.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sommerjon on August 18, 2012, 01:40:42 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572835
No you can't!  Jesus, how dense are you?  Go read that definition.  That did not/does not happen in 1e.
I roll up a character in your game.
I start out as a Ranger at level 2 I plan to dual class into Thief.  Now what does this give me when I reach level 3?

+2 damage vs. bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls.

Surprise opponents 50% of the time (d6, score 1 through 3) and are surprised only 16% of the time (d6, score 1).

Tracking

Plus all of my thief abilities.

Sure the shit sounds like a build to me, it is preplanned character progression.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;572835
There's a reason, that even today, you practically never hear the term "character build" in reference to AD&D.
So you do hear it then.  That's from the people who don't know the right way to play TSR D&D I guess.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;572835
You didn't pick and choose what skills/feats you learned as you went up in levels.  They were the same by class for everyone.  You didn't start at level 15 or 20 and reverse engineer your way backwards to see what options you chose every time you gained a level.  That simply didn't happen with any statistical importance.
No you didn't pick and choose skills/feat,  you got class abilities.   Then all you needed to do was dual class and you got more of them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 01:45:03 AM
Quote from: MGuy;572771
I think the real reason you don't see bulds for pre 3e is because player empowerment is a newer feature in later editions and since prior to 3rd GMs religiously shut people down (and in fact the books encourage them to do this) anytime they get ahead it is probably in the heads of most that charOp is useless since most GMs are ironfisted tyrants at the game table and "fuck you for doing something clever with the rules without my express written consent!". That whole thing.
Show us on the doll where the bad DM touched you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 01:55:31 AM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572911
I roll up a character in your game.
I start out as a Ranger at level 2 I plan to dual class into Thief.  Now what does this give me when I reach level 3?

+2 damage vs. bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls.

Surprise opponents 50% of the time (d6, score 1 through 3) and are surprised only 16% of the time (d6, score 1).

Tracking

Plus all of my thief abilities.

Sure the shit sounds like a build to me, it is preplanned character progression.

 So you do hear it then.  That's from the people who don't know the right way to play TSR D&D I guess.

 No you didn't pick and choose skills/feat,  you got class abilities.   Then all you needed to do was dual class and you got more of them.
You really don't get it do you?  It's not about a plan or a conscious decision out of game or at the character creation phase.  It's about what your character does in game while interacting with the setting. Do I agree?  That isn't the issue sir.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 18, 2012, 01:57:02 AM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572911
I roll up a character in your game.
I start out as a Ranger at level 2 I plan to dual class into Thief.  Now what does this give me when I reach level 3?

+2 damage vs. bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls.

Surprise opponents 50% of the time (d6, score 1 through 3) and are surprised only 16% of the time (d6, score 1).

Tracking

Plus all of my thief abilities.

Sure the shit sounds like a build to me, it is preplanned character progression.

 So you do hear it then.  That's from the people who don't know the right way to play TSR D&D I guess.

 No you didn't pick and choose skills/feat,  you got class abilities.   Then all you needed to do was dual class and you got more of them.


All your thief abilities that never raise.  Really, if that's supposed to be some kind of proof that that's a 'build'...well...k.  But get this: without a teacher?  You won't get that level of ranger.  You can't just decide to be a ranger the next day and voila, there's some stats.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 02:01:24 AM
Quote from: MGuy;572794
By whom? The GM right? Your clever plan only worked if the GM gave the ok I believe.
Here, watch this:

Player: "Ok, I will use my Diplomacy skill to convince him that we should get the king's own galleon for our personal use.  My Diplomancy is 40 after all the bonuses and stuff, what is the DC?"

Viking Hat DM*: "Eight Million."

Huh, looks like that clever plan needs the DM's ok in 3.x, too.  Guess what?  That's how every fucking game works.




*ie, one who isn't a shitty DM shackled to the rules by shitty players that whine like toddlers with a skinned knee; myself and the other Vintage Gamers around here.  Otherwise known as "not you".
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 18, 2012, 02:03:54 AM
With a strength of 13, Intelligence of at least 13, Wisdom of at least 14, and Constitution of at least 14, and Dexterity of 17 all being requirements, I hope your DM is feeling really nice...or you're feeling reaaaaally lucky.

All for a +2 to damage on some monsters and tracking.  Well, whatever works for ya I spose.

"Hey guys, I can change classes!  That's totally a build!"
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 02:07:25 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;572915
Here, watch this:

Player: "Ok, I will use my Diplomacy skill to convince him that we should get the king's own galleon for our personal use.  My Diplomancy is 40 after all the bonuses and stuff, what is the DC?"

Viking Hat DM*: "Eight Million."

Huh, looks like that clever plan needs the DM's ok in 3.x, too.  Guess what?  That's how every fucking game works.




*ie, one who isn't a shitty DM shackled to the rules by shitty players that whine like toddlers with a skinned knee; myself and the other Vintage Gamers around here.  Otherwise known as "not you".
Stormie you ever play White Wolf? Especially Mage? I ask because you just described "thresholds". Which are central to Mage, both versions. I'm sure the actual concept is totally usuable in every White Wolf or D20 game.  Maybe it is...given it works perfectly for my games.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 02:12:04 AM
Quote from: CerilianSeeming;572916
With a strength of 13, Intelligence of at least 13, Wisdom of at least 14, and Constitution of at least 14, and Dexterity of 17 all being requirements, I hope your DM is feeling really nice...or you're feeling reaaaaally lucky.

All for a +2 to damage on some monsters and tracking.  Well, whatever works for ya I spose.

"Hey guys, I can change classes!  That's totally a build!"


Doncha know that actual requirements are silly Viking Hat DM stuff?  That's without the actual playthru unfairness.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 02:13:00 AM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572834
Your response to anyone who does not share your playstyle of AD&D is:
"Man, you just understand fuck all about TSR D&D, don't you?"
That is onetruewayism.
No, that is someone pointing out that you know fuck all about TSR D&D, and should probably stop trying to pretend you do, because we all know you don't.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 18, 2012, 02:15:31 AM
Quote from: MGuy;572737
So tell me then, what prevents you from doing exactly what you described here in 3rd? There are rules for rolling attributes, there are races you can grab, classes you can select, gear you can pick up and shove off with. Hell there are even sample characters for each class you can grab and go. So tell me, what is the difference you are spurging over?

There's nothing to build. No planning in advance, no course to chart, nothing other than getting the treasure--which was the majority, or the entirety, of XP gain--and leveling up.  Everything else is entirely gotten by fucking chance- you can't plan around that.  So, there's nothing to build- characters just happen.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 02:16:36 AM
Quote from: MGuy;572836
Thus why games like 3e which doesn't encourage GM wankery and has players advance or fail based on the rules of the game encourages empowerment.

What you're talking about is the GM deciding whether or not player's fail with the caveat that the GM should let the players pass if they meet that GM's qualifications.
Dudley Dursley was a parody, not a role model.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 18, 2012, 02:17:11 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;572912
Show us on the doll where the bad DM touched you.

This. Folks like MGuy don't need new D&D editions. They need extensive therapy.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 02:26:43 AM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;572924
This. Folks like MGuy don't need new D&D editions. They need extensive therapy.


That's a bit harsh isn't it? Stupid and ignorant isn't a mental disease. At least not yet.  Besides he makes me laugh, that has to count for something right?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 02:27:47 AM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572825
You're not talking 'build' you talking optimization.  However I can make 'builds' quite easily in 1e, which is why I find it laughable that everyone here says it never, never, never, happens ever.
Ok, so show me a 15th level Fighter 'build' in AD&D.  Just for shits and giggles, do a sword and board defender.

Quote
Play a human in 1e take 7 levels of druid the rest as ranger.
Play a human in 1e take 2 levels of ranger the rest as rogue.
Play as an elf magic user/thief tailor your spells(as much as possible) to enhance your thief abilities.
Those aren't 'builds', they are dual- or multi-classing options.  Spell selection isn't part of a 'build', it's part of 'playing your spell casting character'  Also, you can't use your Druid abilities until you surpass that level with the Ranger class, or you lose all experience for that adventure.  Same with the Ranger/Thief, except Rangers don't get spells until 8th level, so taking two levels in it is pretty pointless.  Also, you don't roll hit points until your new class exceeds your previous class.  This also makes it a little tricky:
Quote
Player's Handbook, 1st Edition, pg 33; The Character with Two Classes, second paragraph.
In order to switch from one class to another, the character must have an ability score of 15 or more in the principal attribute(s) ability of the original class and a 17 or 18 in the principal attribute(s) of the class changed to. Note that nearly any combination of classes is thus possible, i.e. cleric 8 fighter, cleric & paladin, cleric & ranger, etc. Alignment will preclude some combinations.
These are things you might have been aware of if you played more often than once a year.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;572842
LOL.  So you're argument is "I heard some  people who hate AD&D say how AD&D was all about taking away  player empowerment despite me never playing it, so it must be  true"
Technically, all his power as a player was taken away when he never played AD&D.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 02:31:56 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572842
LOL.  So you're argument is "I heard some people who hate AD&D say how AD&D was all about taking away player empowerment despite me never playing it, so it must be true"
Technically, all his power as a player was taken away when he never played AD&D.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 02:39:15 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;572910
Your point being what?  Is 3x shit? Or the people that like it shit? Or is it mix? Just because I will give you all the rope you need sir.  Be exact yes? I know what you mean but explain for the stupid and the trolls. You do it so much better than myself, seriously.

Edit: Just a small favor...quit quoting Gleichman.  It's so much better when I know my IL is working.
It means that the Skills and Powers books were the dry run for 3.x.  It was very likely to look pretty much like it does whether it was WotC or TSR doing it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 18, 2012, 02:52:09 AM
EDIT: I missed Stormbringer's more concise explanation of the below.

But in 2e Sommerjon would need a Str 15, Dex 17, Con 14, and a Wis 15 for his build; good luck with your ability score rolls there halfhead...

You need at least 15 in your initial class and a 17 in your new class to dual-class in both editions of AD&D.

So you need to have rolled a 15+ and a 17+ in the pertinent prime requisites to dual-class, plus the other ability score requirements of both (or up to 4 in 2e) classes, as follows:

Cleric - Wisdom 15+ or 17+; 1e: Strength 6+; Intelligence 6+; Constitution 6+; Charisma 6+

Druid - Wisdom and Charisma 15+ or 17+; 1e: Strength 6+; Intelligence 6+; Constitution 6+

Fighter - Strength 15+ or 17+; 1e: Wisdom 6+; 1e: Dexterity 6+; Constitution 6+; Charisma 6+

Paladin 1st ed. - Charisma 17+; Strength and Wisdom 15+ or 17+; Constitution 9+; Intelligence 9+; Dexterity 6+

Paladin 2nd ed. - Charisma 17+; Strength 15+ or 17+; Wisdom 13+; Constitution 9+

Ranger 1st ed. - Strength, Intelligence and Wisdom 15+ or 17+; Constitution 14+; Dexterity 6+; Charisma 6+

Ranger 2nd ed. - Strength, Dexterity and Wisdom 15+ or 17+; Constitution 14+

Magic-User - Intelligence 15+ or 17+; Dexterity 6+; Wisdom 6+; Constitution 6+; Charisma 6+

Wizard - Intelligence 15+ or 17+

Illusionist 1st ed. - Dexterity 16+ or 17+; Intelligence 15+ or 17+; Strength 6+; Wisdom 6+; Charisma 6+

Thief/Rogue - Dexterity 15+ or 17+; 1e: Strength 6+; Intelligence 6+; Constitution 6+; Charisma 6+

Assassin - Strength, Dexterity and possibly Intelligence 15+ or 17+; Intelligence 11+; Constitution 6+

Monk - Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity and possibly Constitution 15+; Constitution 11+; Intelligence 6+; Charisma 6+

I'm not going to do all the 2e specialists Wizards aside from Intelligence 15+ or 17+ and something that's not strength 15-16+ or 17+

Disregarding UA, regarding rolling ability scores:

1e Average scores
Method I: 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9

2e Average scores
Method I: 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10
Method VI: 18, 15, 12, 11, 8, 8

3e Elite Array (for comparison): 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

More here: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/stat_generation.htm (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/stat_generation.htm)

I'm not going to calculate the probabilities of the other methods, but, it looks like that unless your games is using something like Method VI or other extremely generous Ability Score generators (that are more generous than the 3e Elite Array) you have slim odds of qualifying to Dual-Class for a funky subclass and even your chance to qualify for a Fighter/Cleric/Magic-User/Thief are not something that you can take for granted.

And you are definitely not guaranteed "a build".

And I can't think of anyone using something more generous than 4d6 drop lowest & arrange for ability scores in my experience.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 18, 2012, 03:01:05 AM
1e Druid than Ranger dual-class ability score requirements: Str 17, Dex 6, Con 14, Int 17, Wis 17, Cha 15

1e Ranger than Thief dual-class ability score requirements: Str 15, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 15, Wis 15, Cha 6

17, 17, 17, 15, 14, 6,
&
17, 15, 15, 15, 14, 6

Yeah, those are some really likely "builds" you've got going on Stupidjon...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 03:25:41 AM
Quote from: Planet Algol;572940
1e Druid than Ranger dual-class ability score requirements: Str 17, Dex 6, Con 14, Int 17, Wis 17, Cha 15

1e Ranger than Thief dual-class ability score requirements: Str 15, Dex 17, Con 14, Int 15, Wis 15, Cha 6

17, 17, 17, 15, 14, 6,
&
17, 15, 15, 15, 14, 6

Yeah, those are some really likely "builds" you've got going on Stupidjon...


Stormbringer misunderstood my point but you covered it in spades *curtsies*.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 18, 2012, 03:27:16 AM
If you are using Method I stat generation from the DMG these class changes will be exceedingly rare.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 18, 2012, 04:03:30 AM
Yeah I ran a 4d6 drop lowest dice roller and it took 31 sets to get 3 sets of dual-class stats, and nothing that qualified for any subclass combos.

So I'd guess you have a roughly 10% chance of qualifying for dual-class, which is roughly your chance of getting an 18 when doing 4d6 drop lowest.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 18, 2012, 04:04:44 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;572947
Stormbringer misunderstood my point but you covered it in spades *curtsies*.


Math is fun!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 06:30:36 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;572915
Here, watch this:

Player: "Ok, I will use my Diplomacy skill to convince him that we should get the king's own galleon for our personal use.  My Diplomancy is 40 after all the bonuses and stuff, what is the DC?"

Viking Hat DM*: "Eight Million."

Huh, looks like that clever plan needs the DM's ok in 3.x, too.  Guess what?  That's how every fucking game works.




*ie, one who isn't a shitty DM shackled to the rules by shitty players that whine like toddlers with a skinned knee; myself and the other Vintage Gamers around here.  Otherwise known as "not you".


So you're a huge asshole, nice to know. That's example is totally somthing that you can do with the 3e Diplomacy Rules. If you're not going use those rules because they're borked as hell I don't blame you but give the player some heads up. Let me spell it out for you.

Good DM- That player seems to be stacking diplomacy bonuses, I don't think I want Diplomancers in my game. I should tell him we're not using the Diplomacy rules as writen.

Bad DM- That dirty minmaxiner, using a rule when I want him to magical tea party, I'll show him. The DC is over 9000 yuk yuk yuk.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 07:27:27 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572966
So you're a huge asshole, nice to know. That's example is totally somthing that you can do with the 3e Diplomacy Rules. If you're not going use those rules because they're borked as hell I don't blame you but give the player some heads up. Let me spell it out for you.

Good DM- That player seems to be stacking diplomacy bonuses, I don't think I want Diplomancers in my game. I should tell him we're not using the Diplomacy rules as writen.

Bad DM- That dirty minmaxiner, using a rule when I want him to magical tea party, I'll show him. The DC is over 9000 yuk yuk yuk.


What I would do, when The Diplomancer convinces the King to hand over the Galleon is add some challenge to the adventure; perhaps the Queen is pissed at the Diplomancer because she wanted that boat to go to her secret lover, the Admiral. So he gets a galleon but has a Queen and an Admiral conspiring against him.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 07:34:18 AM
Quote from: Bill;572970
What I would do, when The Diplomancer convinces the King to hand over the Galleon is add some challenge to the adventure; perhaps the Queen is pissed at the Diplomancer because she wanted that boat to go to her secret lover, the Admiral. So he gets a galleon but has a Queen and an Admiral conspiring against him.


See, this is being a good DM.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 18, 2012, 07:54:15 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572843
I had to look up the Celerity domain in my handy dandy Spell Compendium. It's not bad, but for minmaxed gamekilling Clerics I expect to see Divine Metamagic (Persist) at the minimum. Celerity domain though, I can only wonder why. Knowledge, Magic, Travel and War are all better and that's just in core. If you have the SC and are going for broke why not Planning or Spell.
I can see the game killing but not the minmaxer


I wasn't really familiar with the specific domain.

Not all purported minmaxers are necessarily good at it. In fact, extrapolating from my WoW experience, it's usually the least skilled people in the raid who do the yelling over Ventrilo about your spec or your gear.

I can't speak for everyone, but of course, almost everyone who's confronted with choice in a character generation system that's less than 100% random will tend towards optimal choices; you roll a fighter, you want him to be good at fighting, so all else being equal you'll pick up the best arms and armor 3d6x10gp can buy.

What irks me is active, unsolicited rules lawyering. The idea that players have a God-given right to everything that's in the RAW is particularly irksome. Some people I've gamed with in the past take particular pleasure in finding and exploiting loopholes.

For the record, the most skilled min-maxer I currently game with is an incredibly nice guy who's never been trouble at the game tablem, and has time and again demonstrating that he's as good playing the game-world as he is at understanding and leveraging the rules in his favor, on account of his being an incredibly clever sonofabitch.

The old group had a couple of min-maxers who fit the stereotype most people are referring to in this thread; and in less than 6 months were never invited back to my game table. One of the also GMed the most horrible railroad games and derived great pleasure from shepherding PCs towards encounters with very powerful demons with a marked tendency towards gloating over the PCs. Go figure. ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 18, 2012, 08:08:47 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572966
So you're a huge asshole, nice to know. That's example is totally somthing that you can do with the 3e Diplomacy Rules. If you're not going use those rules because they're borked as hell I don't blame you but give the player some heads up. Let me spell it out for you.


[ME AS GM:] The King is unlikely to give you his personal boat no matter what you roll on the dice as diplomacy does not work like a charm person spell in my game. I told you that when you started talking about how great diplomacy was when we were creating characters. Hell, the house rules warn you that skills (no matter how you stack bonuses) do not allow you to do anything the GM considers outrageous for a skill as skills aren't magical abilities.

[Diplomancer Player:] What I want to do is totally with the rules of the game for Diplomacy. {Player begins to quote rules from memory}

[ME AS GM:] {Cuts player off} The campaign info you were given to when you started playing clearly state the published rules are merely guidelines for the GM and the GM's word, not the written rules, prevails in cases where they conflict.

[Diplomancer Player:] You are a asshole. You are a horrible GM. {rant continues}

[ME AS GM:] Perhaps I am, but not nearly as much of an asshole as a player who was warned about how things worked in this campaign ahead of time, decided to play in the campaign, and then throws a fit when the things he was warned about happen. If you don't like the way we play here, don't let the door hit you on the way out, otherwise apologize to the other players for being such a jerk and wasting their time and don't do this again. Which is it going to be?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 18, 2012, 08:09:25 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572966
Good DM- That player seems to be stacking diplomacy bonuses, I don't think I want Diplomancers in my game. I should tell him we're not using the Diplomacy rules as writen.

Bad DM- That dirty minmaxiner, using a rule when I want him to magical tea party, I'll show him. The DC is over 9000 yuk yuk yuk.


Better DM- OK, so you are a Diplomancer. Please role-play the arguement you as your character is going to use to convince the King to part with this cherished item of his. This will create a modifier to your skill check. Success gets you the item while failure gets you the job of Inadvertant Court Jester. Now, sock it to me, Hamlet!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 08:24:44 AM
Quote from: The Butcher;572979

I can't speak for everyone, but of course, almost everyone who's confronted with choice in a character generation system that's less than 100% random will tend towards optimal choices; you roll a fighter, you want him to be good at fighting, so all else being equal you'll pick up the best arms and armor 3d6x10gp can buy.

plus fucking one, some people in this thread don't seem to get this

Quote from: The Butcher;572979
What irks me is active, unsolicited rules lawyering. The idea that players have a God-given right to everything that's in the RAW is particularly irksome. Some people I've gamed with in the past take particular pleasure in finding and exploiting loopholes.

Rules lawyers who go to court for every +/-1 are a pain, but if the DM is running an an ecounter with dire bears is pays to have somone who actually understands the grapple rules.
Quote from: The Butcher;572979
For the record, the most skilled min-maxer I currently game with is an incredibly nice guy who's never been trouble at the game tablem, and has time and again demonstrating that he's as good playing the game-world as he is at understanding and leveraging the rules in his favor, on account of his being an incredibly clever sonofabitch.

If you're a minmaxer in a mixed party, their are plenty of ways to optimize without being a jerk. Haste, Slow, and Solid Fog are some of the best spells but I've never had people mad at me for casting them. If you don't throw out big numbers or move in on someone's niche I've foud that people tend not to complain.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 08:41:15 AM
While I agree that learning the most effective abilities and aquiring the best gear is reasonable...

I really hate the cookie cutter nature of 'the best fighter builds'

I am so sick of 'power attack greatcleave' fighters.

I just wish the feats were more balanced, and had a TON of more variety.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 18, 2012, 08:55:08 AM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572911
I roll up a character in your game.
I start out as a Ranger at level 2 I plan to dual class into Thief.  Now what does this give me when I reach level 3?

+2 damage vs. bugbears, ettins, giants, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, orcs, and trolls.

Surprise opponents 50% of the time (d6, score 1 through 3) and are surprised only 16% of the time (d6, score 1).

Tracking

Plus all of my thief abilities.

Sure the shit sounds like a build to me, it is preplanned character progression.

Only that never happened with any statistical relevance.  But then again, you wouldn't know Mr. "I open my AD&D books once a year."  Dual classing was very rare, and when it did happen, it typically wasn't with the player preplanning out all of their levels.

I'm honestly baffled that you are still trying to make this false equivalency with 3e.
Quote

 So you do hear it then.  That's from the people who don't know the right way to play TSR D&D I guess.

I have never heard it.  Ever.  But I'm not going to say it NEVER happens.  You might have 0.0001% of the players who call it that.  But the point is that if it does happen, it is so rare as to not have an statistical relevance.
Quote

 No you didn't pick and choose skills/feat,  you got class abilities.   Then all you needed to do was dual class and you got more of them.

Picking and choosing which abilities to get as you level is part of the definition of what a build is.  If you don't pick and choose what abilities you get, then it is not a build, by the very definition.

How hard is that to understand?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 09:01:30 AM
Quote from: Bill;572994
While I agree that learning the most effective abilities and aquiring the best gear is reasonable...

I really hate the cookie cutter nature of 'the best fighter builds'

I am so sick of 'power attack greatcleave' fighters.

I just wish the feats were more balanced, and had a TON of more variety.


I can feel your pain, Power Attack is what my compatriots and I like to call a feat tax. In 3rd monster hp inflates fast (seriously compare monster hp in 3rd to 2nd) and fighters can't keep up without Power Attack. this is why evocation is worse in 3e than it is in 2e despite the spells being almost the same.

 3e fighter have more options a char gen than their 2e bretheren but the nature of feat chains tends to lock characters into doing one thing. As with all people dissatisfied with the fighter I feel obligated to point you to the Warblade

Quote from: Sacrosanct;572997
Picking and choosing which abilities to get as you level is part of the definition of what a build is.  If you don't pick and choose what abilities you get, then it is not a build, by the very definition.

How hard is that to understand?


So would you prefer not letting people pick and choose abilities as they level
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 18, 2012, 09:04:15 AM
Quote from: Sommerjon;572729
So that wizard striving for one particular spell is not a build?  That paladin doing his best to find a holy avenger, Rogue looking for a particular pair of boots, etc, etc.

These things are not "builds"?  Get the fuck over yourselves.


These things you describe fit well within the class paradigm and are in no way "lego blocks" for creating a character.  On the left hand you have playing a class based game.  On the right you have taking the concepts of a class based game and changing it into a point-buy game.

If on your planet these are the same thing, then there's genuinely no point in reading what you post.  You may as well be making the Chewbacca defense.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: JamesV on August 18, 2012, 10:27:53 AM
[Perlman] Edition war. Edition war never changes. [/Perlman]
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 18, 2012, 11:52:58 AM
Wow. I hjave learned so much about about TSR D&D that I never knew.

All this time I could have been using the mighty power of builds for my AD&D and B/X characters and I never caught on. Oh well, live and learn I suppose.

Ok, let me begin sketching out a totally kewl build for a Moldvay B/X fighter.

Lemme roll one up:

S: 11
I: 10
W: 15
D: 12
C: 12
Ch: 14

I can lower Wis to 9 and raise my Str to 14.  I rolled a 6 for starting hp and 120gp for starting cash.

Ok build experts, whats the next move?  Lets keep it simple and only plan out to level 5.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 11:58:17 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572966
So you're a huge asshole, nice to know. That's example is totally somthing that you can do with the 3e Diplomacy Rules. If you're not going use those rules because they're borked as hell I don't blame you but give the player some heads up. Let me spell it out for you.

Good DM- That player seems to be stacking diplomacy bonuses, I don't think I want Diplomancers in my game. I should tell him we're not using the Diplomacy rules as writen.

Bad DM- That dirty minmaxiner, using a rule when I want him to magical tea party, I'll show him. The DC is over 9000 yuk yuk yuk.
Best DM:  You aren't a special little snowflake, you are part of a team.  When you are done sobbing, blow your nose and get the fuck away from my table.

I don't feel the need to give a heads up, because good players don't pull shit like stacking the hell out of diplomacy, or showing up with some insane Pun-Pun knock-off and expect to be taken seriously.  They can GTFO too.

It's mostly just to see asshole players have a crying jag when their demands that the rules trump my decisions are shattered.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 18, 2012, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;572922
There's nothing to build. No planning in advance, no course to chart, nothing other than getting the treasure--which was the majority, or the entirety, of XP gain--and leveling up.  Everything else is entirely gotten by fucking chance- you can't plan around that.  So, there's nothing to build- characters just happen.


So your big issue with 3/4e is that players have more options for their characters? Can a wizard in 2e not plan on trying to get certain spells as he levels? Can a fighter not plan to specialize in a certain fighting style? Weren't there supplement books for 2e that gave you more options? Whatever. I guess having more choices isn't up some people's alley and player empowerment scares the iron fisted GM dictator.


Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572966
So you're a huge asshole, nice to know. That's example is totally somthing that you can do with the 3e Diplomacy Rules. If you're not going use those rules because they're borked as hell I don't blame you but give the player some heads up. Let me spell it out for you.

Good DM- That player seems to be stacking diplomacy bonuses, I don't think I want Diplomancers in my game. I should tell him we're not using the Diplomacy rules as writen.

Bad DM- That dirty minmaxiner, using a rule when I want him to magical tea party, I'll show him. The DC is over 9000 yuk yuk yuk.
Mist, Storm doesn't believe that rulesshould ever be followed in a game. He doesn't believe in "balance" at all so instead he just changes the rules on the fly to make his games work at all. He's like Sacro, Marley, and Benoist. He's not interested in an actual conversation nor does he know how to make rules or how to tell whether a given rule is functional. He's like Marleycat but instead of knowing that he doesn't know what he's talking about and just e-fellating other posters he pretends he does.

He seriously thinks cutting down the number of bonuses available in a game causes MORE issues than having a bunch. He doesn't even know why RNG or the dice range is important to stick to. Yes he hilariously enough will turn around and screw over someone who broke out the range. Just treat his posts like Marley's. Full of nothing. While Marley may just be an echo chamber with no idea of what she's talking about or what anyone's point is you'll only miss his self fellating pompous neckbeardisms by skipping over his posts. I haven't found it to be a loss to miss his turds though from what I can tell he's apt to follow my posts.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: MGuy;573035
I guess having more choices isn't up some people's alley and player empowerment scares the iron fisted GM dictator.


They do have issues with players actually having a say in what happens in a game- thus their hatred of Story-Games and RAW.

But there are multiple issues here, not simply fear. You're looking at people who can't accept the games rules they're playing with, even after they've dropped back to the most rules light versions of the game published.

But rather than playing system-less, they still cling to the idea that they're playing D&D, perhaps because they get to keep the Resource Managment part of the rules.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: LordVreeg on August 18, 2012, 01:32:29 PM
Quote from: MGuy;573035
So your big issue with 3/4e is that players have more options for their characters? Can a wizard in 2e not plan on trying to get certain spells as he levels? Can a fighter not plan to specialize in a certain fighting style? Weren't there supplement books for 2e that gave you more options? Whatever. I guess having more choices isn't up some people's alley and player empowerment scares the iron fisted GM dictator.


Mist, Storm doesn't believe that rulesshould ever be followed in a game. He doesn't believe in "balance" at all so instead he just changes the rules on the fly to make his games work at all. He's like Sacro, Marley, and Benoist. He's not interested in an actual conversation nor does he know how to make rules or how to tell whether a given rule is functional. He's like Marleycat but "instead of knowing that he doesn't know what he's talking about and just e-fellating other posters he pretends he does.

He seriously thinks cutting down the number of bonuses available in a game causes MORE issues than having a bunch. He doesn't even know why RNG or the dice range is important to stick to. Yes he hilariously enough will turn around and screw over someone who broke out the range. Just treat his posts like Marley's. Full of nothing. While Marley may just be an echo chamber with no idea of what she's talking about or what anyone's point is you'll only miss his self fellating pompous neckbeardisms by skipping over his posts. I haven't found it to be a loss to miss his turds though from what I can tell he's apt to follow my posts.


So that's your position statement?

"He doesn't believe that rules should be followed in a game. He's like *everyone else* that disagrees with me, and since they disagree with me, I will ascribe a list of negative attributes to that group which dares challenge my particular position."

What a perfect example of the worst kind of post.  You characterize others' posts as a waste of time and then put this up?

I think I am kind of in Randall's camp, so maybe I will also find myself placed on this list.  But with a twist.  I really don't believe any setting background and gamestyle matches perfectly with any RAW (unless they are written for that game).  
So every GM has the responsibility of expressing houserules and gamestyle and GM style in the beginning of a game or campaign.  I use a lot of diplomacy/social skills in my games, so how these play out is very regularly used and clearly spelled out.

But then again, the whole idea of 'player empowerment' leaves me at a loss.  In eveygame I run and deal with, I always explicitly make clear that the GM is playing the game with the players, not againct them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 01:36:38 PM
Quote from: LordVreeg;573045

But then again, the whole idea of 'player empowerment' leaves me at a loss.  In eveygame I run and deal with, I always explicitly make clear that the GM is playing the game with the players, not againct them.


I feel much the same way. This sort of thing has never been an issue for me because I am there to work with the players.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: LordVreeg on August 18, 2012, 01:42:59 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573037
They do have issues with players actually having a say in what happens in a game- thus their hatred of Story-Games and RAW.

But there are multiple issues here, not simply fear. You're looking at people who can't accept the games rules they're playing with, even after they've dropped back to the most rules light versions of the game published.

But rather than playing system-less, they still cling to the idea that they're playing D&D, perhaps because they get to keep the Resource Managment part of the rules.


Who's this 'they' you describe?
 
I left D&D a while before.  Maybe that is part of the multiple issues?  Then again, I play a very rules-heavy game.  So, no again there.
And since I wrote it, it's pretty RAW.

And the whole campaigns and story arcs are put into place for the player's to interact with...so that makes them the central characters in the game....so maybe it is a different version, a very specific definition of 'having a say' in the game, that you are looking for?

Where is the statistically significant relationship between a lack of using RAW and a dislke of shared narrative games you are looking for?  I have really never noted it, but I might be looking in the wrong places?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 01:48:20 PM
Quote from: LordVreeg;573048
Who's this 'they' you describe?
 


Anyone who's battle cry is "rulings, not rules". But specifically therpgsite's bully club who's been very active in this thread.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 01:49:44 PM
For what is worth I tend to run games RAW. I just prefer games that don't go into as much detail as 3E these days, so there is more room to apply broad guildelines in specific situations (versus having more intricate rules or charts for more specific situations). I also like games that have plenty of optional approaches or lend themselves to tweaks so I can tailor things to my group as much as possible.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 01:53:11 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573052
Anyone who's battle cry is "rulings, not rules". But specifically therpgsite's bully club who's been very active in this thread.


I think there is a huge middle ground though between the extremes of all raw all the time and rulings not rules. For me rulings not rules is just a reminder of the GMs role as judge and that the spirit of the rules is important too. If something is obviously a loophole that the designers never intended, like a crazy build that allows rediculous amounts of damage, it is perfectly reasonable for the Gm to plug that hole.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573052
Anyone who's battle cry is "rulings, not rules". But specifically therpgsite's bully club who's been very active in this thread.


...What? I'm a Bully now because I GM and like other GMs to be able to make rulings instead of following the rules as written? What happens when the rules don't cover a specific scenario or event?

For the record, I like some storygames, but I am definitely not an advocate for following the rules as written (for any RPG games really) for a number of reasons:

1. I want more in my games for the players than the rules author(s) cared to include.

2. The existing rules are often broken, wrong (errata), or otherwise incomplete necessitating additional new material be included (often material or mechanics the original game authors never even conceived of when they were making their visionary new game).

3. My game isn't a cookie-cutter clone of someone else's game, my game is going to have some material, resources, and mechanics in it that no other game has, just to keep it unique, interesting, and entertaining.

Wanting that makes me a bully?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: beeber on August 18, 2012, 02:06:10 PM
it's like the hatfields & the mccoys around here now
:popcorn:
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 02:06:23 PM
Quote from: GameDaddy;573056
Wanting that makes me a bully?


Is it a battle cry for you? If so, I haven't noticed.

No, I'm not talking about people who just hold a opinion. I'm talking about people like Benoist and Sacrosanct and others like them for whom it's a holy crusade that requires them to attack and demean other styles, whip up on any idea coming about about D&D Next, and dog piling anyone who disagrees with them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 18, 2012, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573054
I think there is a huge middle ground though between the extremes of all raw all the time and rulings not rules. For me rulings not rules is just a reminder of the GMs role as judge and that the spirit of the rules is important too. If something is obviously a loophole that the designers never intended, like a crazy build that allows rediculous amounts of damage, it is perfectly reasonable for the Gm to plug that hole.


I fully agree.  There are lots of things that just may not be appropriate to the game.  I've had my issues with blinking/two-weapon-fighting/hasted/high-level rouges.  I didn't want to have to make everything in the world challenging for that particular build, so I talked to the player and took it out of the game.  

But there's a real difference between banning something because it's causing disruption and banning something because 'it doesn't strike me as something a real person would do'.  

Players should justify their character choices.  But as long as they can do that, if it doesn't cause problems in the game, great.  

So, yes, if I were going to play with someone who wouldn't allow a Ranger 2/Fighter 2/Sorcerer 1, I'd probably choose not to play with them.  If they didn't want to allow a Hulking Hurler, that'd be different.  You can try to make an effective combination without making a 'broken' combination.  The fact is, there aren't that many 'broken' combinations out there.  And while there may be a char-op community pointing out such broken combinations, I don't see people using them in actual games.  

But I don't dismiss them as theory-wankers.  I think that people that try to 'break' the game are doing a valuable service.  Designers should consider how they broke it and whether a fix is needed...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 02:09:23 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573053
For what is worth I tend to run games RAW.


I've seen you say too many contradictory things too close together for me to take anything from you as a true and complete statement.

The only thing I haven't figured out is if you do it simply because you get excited and lost in whatever current argument, or if you're intentionally trying to protray yourself as a moderate while holding extreme views.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 18, 2012, 02:10:40 PM
Quote from: LordVreeg;573045
So that's your position statement?

"He doesn't believe that rules should be followed in a game. He's like *everyone else* that disagrees with me, and since they disagree with me, I will ascribe a list of negative attributes to that group which dares challenge my particular position."

What a perfect example of the worst kind of post.  You characterize others' posts as a waste of time and then put this up?

I think I am kind of in Randall's camp, so maybe I will also find myself placed on this list.  But with a twist.  I really don't believe any setting background and gamestyle matches perfectly with any RAW (unless they are written for that game).  
So every GM has the responsibility of expressing houserules and gamestyle and GM style in the beginning of a game or campaign.  I use a lot of diplomacy/social skills in my games, so how these play out is very regularly used and clearly spelled out.

But then again, the whole idea of 'player empowerment' leaves me at a loss.  In eveygame I run and deal with, I always explicitly make clear that the GM is playing the game with the players, not againct them.
No, not like everyone else who disagrees with me. I respect Bedrock's positions. We want different games but at least Bedrock is sensible even if I don't agree with some of his ways. Randall is also someone I don't ignore and neither are you. People who don't pretend to make an argument and are specifically out to drown out or just make fun of other people's playing styles (Benoist/Storm) or don't know anything and decide to just echo the assholes (Marley), and just trolls (Declan) aren't worth engaging with. At the very least Sacro is just clueless and I don't "think" he's doing that on purpose.

I can heatedly disagree with someone without reducing them to nothing in my mind (Kaelik). However the people I've listed have proven that they have no real argument, that no amount of engaging with them is worth anything, and will do everything they can to avoid using reason. So I'm warning Mist that there is no amount of talking to the listed people that will be worth his time.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 18, 2012, 02:12:44 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573062
But I don't dismiss them as theory-wankers.  I think that people that try to 'break' the game are doing a valuable service.  Designers should consider how they broke it and whether a fix is needed...

It's really sad that so many will miss this.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 18, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
Quote from: LordVreeg;573045
But then again, the whole idea of 'player empowerment' leaves me at a loss.  In eveygame I run and deal with, I always explicitly make clear that the GM is playing the game with the players, not againct them.

I'm never played against the players in my campaigns. I'm always rooting for them to succeed -- even if I'm playing the evil high priest they are fighting against.

I don't do narrative games, however. I run sandbox campaigns and don't have a story to tell. The stories arise naturally from play. Not the type of stories one finds in a collection of short stories, but the types of "this is what happened when we..." stories people tell about their own adventures and misadventures when sitting around with friends long after the events have occurred.

My games tend to be rules-lite (especially when compared to the multi-thousand page rules sets used for modern D&D) and I am a big believer in situational rulings instead of rules that try to cover everything. There's also little opportunity for min-maxing or rules lawyering in my games -- and I and my players frown on that type of play anyway.

I realize that the type of "old school" campaigns I run and the lite rules I use turn off many players who prefer other styles of play and WOTC versions of the rules used as close to RAW as possible. However, I not only do not care but do not understand why I should care that my campaign and rules choices are considered bad (or even evil, nasty GMing) by some. I have no interest in playing with people who feel like that so why should their opinions of what I do as GM, my preferred styles of play, my preferred sets of rules, my use of Rule 0, or my prioritizing setting and table needs over the RAW have any influence on how I play?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 02:13:31 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573064
I've seen you say too many contradictory things too close together for me to take anything from you as a true and complete statement.

The only thing I haven't figured out is if you do it simply because you get excited and lost in whatever current argument, or if you're intentionally trying to protray yourself as a moderate while holding extreme views.


I love you too gleichman
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: LordVreeg on August 18, 2012, 02:18:26 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573054
I think there is a huge middle ground though between the extremes of all raw all the time and rulings not rules. For me rulings not rules is just a reminder of the GMs role as judge and that the spirit of the rules is important too. If something is obviously a loophole that the designers never intended, like a crazy build that allows rediculous amounts of damage, it is perfectly reasonable for the Gm to plug that hole.


3rd Corrolary to Vreeg's First Law of game/setting design.

"The rules are the physics engine of the setting, Crunch models Fluff.  As rules are the interface between the setting and the player's actions, Houseruling is a constant process of creating a rule for a setting-specific event to formalize it.  This is a process to be welcomed and enjoyed, as it only comes from the expansion of the players into the setting.  Talk to them about it and formalize it with them if you have any doubts."

As you mention, I believe in a continuum here as well.

I actually mainly play a very rules heavy skill based game with little need for major interpretation of the rules, as well as a D20 bonze age rules-lite game that is designed with the understanding of more GM fiat.  Neither is better or worse, but both are valid, as long as the GM and players knows it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 18, 2012, 02:18:40 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573047
I feel much the same way. This sort of thing has never been an issue for me because I am there to work with the players.

Then why are you not advocating following the rules of mentioned game to the people who are rallying against following the rules of the game?

As I've outlined obviously player empowerment (where there are definite things a player can definitely do in game, without explicit GM permission in order to have a solid effect on the plot) is something that came online most notably in 3rd. Seriously Mist quoted Storm talking about breaking the rules of the game on a player because that player built an unbeatable Diplomacy Bonus. Why aren't you saying anything against that kind of iron fisted GM wankery?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 18, 2012, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: LordVreeg;573074
3rd Corrolary to Vreeg's First Law of game/setting design.

"The rules are the physics engine of the setting, Crunch models Fluff.  As rules are the interface between the setting and the player's actions, Houseruling is a constant process of creating a rule for a setting-specific event to formalize it.  This is a process to be welcomed and enjoyed, as it only comes from the expansion of the players into the setting.  Talk to them about it and formalize it with them if you have any doubts."

As you mention, I believe in a continuum here as well.

I actually mainly play a very rules heavy skill based game with little need for major interpretation of the rules, as well as a D20 bonze age rules-lite game that is designed with the understanding of more GM fiat.  Neither is better or worse, but both are valid, as long as the GM and players knows it.

Another thing I'd like to bring up. I haven't, I suspect no one else weighing in on the subject, said anything negative about house ruling things to fit the setting at all. If your setting is low magic cool, you let anyone who is playing know up front. You don't like how Diplomacy works (I know I don't) let them know up front.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 02:29:10 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573062
But I don't dismiss them as theory-wankers.  I think that people that try to 'break' the game are doing a valuable service.  Designers should consider how they broke it and whether a fix is needed...


The first thing I do with any new game system that comes to my attention is try to break it. If successful, and if a fix isn't easily managed- I discard it.

Sometimes a game is too seductive for whatever reason, and I ignore that rule (Shadowrun, original Deadlands). I've always regretted it.

However I don't think designers are really interested in fixing the breaks. You see companies and authors produced new editions of the rules with the same flaws. I'd only expect to see that type of behavior when the customer considers such flaws to actually be virtues, and thus continues to buy the product.

That's may well be the truth in many cases, for the existences of those types of flaws give the "rulings not rules" crowd a reason for their disregard of RAW- justifiying the increased dependance on the GM to maintain the game in spite of them, and along the way feeding their ego because they see their actions as a marker of skilled role-playing. Sadly it's just an inability to pick and understand a good set of rules.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 18, 2012, 02:30:54 PM
Mguy makes a very important point, so I'll repeat for emphasis.

Telling someone that things work different BEFORE they invest character resources is fair.  Telling them AFTER is being a dick.  

My favorite character from the A-Team is Face.  If I try to make a smooth-talking con man, I'm likely to put skill ranks and/or feats into bluff and diplomacy.  If I find out that no matter how many resources I put in, I can only succeed if I say the magic word (ie, you get the boat if you tell the King that you'll bring back the white whale) but can get it in no other way, then I don't need to put ranks or feats into those skills...  I can have a +0 modifier, but figure out the magic word and STILL accomplish what I wanted to.  

So, I'm better off putting those skills and feats somewhere else.  

But if I don't find out until after I've spent all the skills, I may find I can't do the one thing I thought I'd be good at doing.  And if I can't do the one thing I thought I could do well, I'm a burden for the party.  I'd be better off playing a different character that actually has something to contribute.  

I don't think that's being a power-gaming munchkin.  That's just being polite.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 02:31:16 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573061
No, I'm not talking about people who just hold a opinion. I'm talking about people like Benoist and Sacrosanct and others like them for whom it's a holy crusade that requires them to attack and demean other styles, whip up on any idea coming about about D&D Next, and dog piling anyone who disagrees with them.


It's been my observation over the years that many of the folks that come to this forum, do so, because their ideas about what should be included in an RPG game were misdirected, taken out of context, attacked, demeaned, ridiculed, deleted, and often outright banned on many other forums.

Why are you so surprised that these guys want to defend the games they want to play?

...Here.

Because, really when it comes down to it, I can find out all about DnDNext, on Enworld, or at WOTC, or on hundreds of the RPGBlogger blogs. In fact there isn't a place I can go where I won't hear about it. That doesn't mean I should automatically be obliged to include it (or some variant of it) in my own games.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: MGuy;573075
Then why are you not advocating following the rules of mentioned game to the people who are rallying against following the rules of the game?

As I've outlined obviously player empowerment (where there are definite things a player can definitely do in game, without explicit GM permission in order to have a solid effect on the plot) is something that came online most notably in 3rd. Seriously Mist quoted Storm talking about breaking the rules of the game on a player because that player built an unbeatable Diplomacy Bonus. Why aren't you saying anything against that kind of iron fisted GM wankery?


Because whether the rules are followed raw is up to the group and GM. While you may feel mechanics that empower players are good, not all players feel that way. In fact many wont like them. Some will find 3E diplomacy rules intrusive and feel they give too much narrative control to the players. As in the case of storms example, I don't really know if he is being the jerk, or if the player trying to use diplomacy is. It depends on the group and its expectations. Personally I would have taken a different approach then he described, but I do think some groups will want a gm to adjudicate like that.

I adapt to my group. This is why I can run games for my current group (who are the furthest things from 3E optimizers) and run games comfortably for my old 3E group (who were pretty hardcore 3e optiizers).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tommy Brownell on August 18, 2012, 02:37:31 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573082
Mguy makes a very important point, so I'll repeat for emphasis.

Telling someone that things work different BEFORE they invest character resources is fair.  Telling them AFTER is being a dick.  

My favorite character from the A-Team is Face.  If I try to make a smooth-talking con man, I'm likely to put skill ranks and/or feats into bluff and diplomacy.  If I find out that no matter how many resources I put in, I can only succeed if I say the magic word (ie, you get the boat if you tell the King that you'll bring back the white whale) but can get it in no other way, then I don't need to put ranks or feats into those skills...  I can have a +0 modifier, but figure out the magic word and STILL accomplish what I wanted to.  

So, I'm better off putting those skills and feats somewhere else.  

But if I don't find out until after I've spent all the skills, I may find I can't do the one thing I thought I'd be good at doing.  And if I can't do the one thing I thought I could do well, I'm a burden for the party.  I'd be better off playing a different character that actually has something to contribute.  

I don't think that's being a power-gaming munchkin.  That's just being polite.


I'd agree with this 100%. Much like with Benoist's take on storygames vs RPGs...set the expectations beforehand. If dice are never going to be used on a persuasive argument at your table, then tell your players so they can put their effort elsewhere, absolutely. Same with Prestige Classes...it's okay to say "No, I don't allow this Prestige Class"...much less kosher for a player to kind of assume it's available, be building towards it, get ready to take it and have the DM go "Uh, not at my table, buddy!"
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: GameDaddy;573083
Why are you so surprised that these guys want to defend the games they want to play?


I'm not surprised. I'm disgusted at they methods they use, it's mob mentality that lacks any reason and it ill serves the ideas they're trying to defend.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 18, 2012, 02:40:22 PM
While this thread is not about 3.x Diplomacy, the rules aren't supposed to work that way in any case.  You can't necessarily marry the king's daughter or have him give you a warship even if he really likes you.  He may WANT to help, but we all have obligations.  We help our friends when we can without too much difficulty.  

The king might WANT to have the players take the ship, but he has to deal with the admiral and his well-connected family.  Before he promotes the PCs OVER his own nobility, he's probably going to have to ask them to prove themselves.  Of course, since he thinks they're the shiznit, he won't think twice about giving them a nearly impossible task - then, when they succeed, they've proved their superiority to his existing admiral.  

Diplomacy (and charm) don't make people do things that they don't want to do - but it makes it easier to convince them that they DO want to do what you want them to.  If you can address their concern (the reason they wouldn't want to do it in the first place), then the fact that they like you makes them more willing to go to bat for you.  

Just saying.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 18, 2012, 02:40:25 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573085
Because whether the rules are followed raw is up to the group and GM. While you may feel mechanics that empower players are good, not all players feel that way. In fact many wont like them. Some will find 3E diplomacy rules intrusive and feel they give too much narrative control to the players. As in the case of storms example, I don't really know if he is being the jerk, or if the player trying to use diplomacy is. It depends on the group and its expectations. Personally I would have taken a different approach then he described, but I do think some groups will want a gm to adjudicate like that.

I adapt to my group. This is why I can run games for my current group (who are the furthest things from 3E optimizers) and run games comfortably for my old 3E group (who were pretty hardcore 3e optiizers).


Diplomacy is a really bad skill. It is as bad as having profession on your character sheet because it is either over powered or completely useless. Now I say this before getting into my specific issues with bonus whoring in 3.5 so I think it's pretty unfair to call out Diplomacy as your example.
Now Dead makes an important point so I'm going to highlight it:

Quote
If I find out that no matter how many resources I put in, I can only succeed if I say the magic word (ie, you get the boat if you tell the King that you'll bring back the white whale) but can get it in no other way, then I don't need to put ranks or feats into those skills... I can have a +0 modifier, but figure out the magic word and STILL accomplish what I wanted to.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573088
While this thread is not about 3.x Diplomacy, the rules aren't supposed to work that way in any case.  You can't necessarily marry the king's daughter or have him give you a warship even if he really likes you.  He may WANT to help, but we all have obligations.  We help our friends when we can without too much difficulty.  

The king might WANT to have the players take the ship, but he has to deal with the admiral and his well-connected family.  Before he promotes the PCs OVER his own nobility, he's probably going to have to ask them to prove themselves.  Of course, since he thinks they're the shiznit, he won't think twice about giving them a nearly impossible task - then, when they succeed, they've proved their superiority to his existing admiral.  

Diplomacy (and charm) don't make people do things that they don't want to do - but it makes it easier to convince them that they DO want to do what you want them to.  If you can address their concern (the reason they wouldn't want to do it in the first place), then the fact that they like you makes them more willing to go to bat for you.  

Just saying.


I am aware diplomacy isn't as problematic in 3e as people make it out to be. In fact I think we had a thread not to long ago that got into the issue of the diplomancer and discussed that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 18, 2012, 02:44:49 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573082
Mguy makes a very important point, so I'll repeat for emphasis.

Telling someone that things work different BEFORE they invest character resources is fair.  Telling them AFTER is being a dick.  

My favorite character from the A-Team is Face.  If I try to make a smooth-talking con man, I'm likely to put skill ranks and/or feats into bluff and diplomacy.  If I find out that no matter how many resources I put in, I can only succeed if I say the magic word (ie, you get the boat if you tell the King that you'll bring back the white whale) but can get it in no other way, then I don't need to put ranks or feats into those skills...  I can have a +0 modifier, but figure out the magic word and STILL accomplish what I wanted to.  

So, I'm better off putting those skills and feats somewhere else.  

But if I don't find out until after I've spent all the skills, I may find I can't do the one thing I thought I'd be good at doing.  And if I can't do the one thing I thought I could do well, I'm a burden for the party.  I'd be better off playing a different character that actually has something to contribute.  

I don't think that's being a power-gaming munchkin.  That's just being polite.


Given that I personally am present whenever a new player is rolling up a character, this is one thing that I agree with you on (although, it is much more something that has to be watched in more modern, rules-y games than in TSR, where the primary offender is something like darts).  It's just a very small facet of something that underlies the entire AD&D mindset -- trust.

The problem, as I see it, is that people who 'believe like you' have this unexplainable belief that DM's are out to get you.  While I'm sure all of us have met the occasional douchebag who is like that, they are relatively few and far between.  'Gygaxian', as imagined by most modern players with little to no pre-3E experience...is mostly a myth.  The very fact that we don't use reams and reams of rules and still have gobs of players is a testament to our ability to foster trust between ourselves and our players.  Otherwise...we would have no players.  This is why so many of us scoff at many of the suggested mannerisms that we supposedly have; they're so far divorced from reality as to be laughable.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 02:48:46 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573087
I'm not surprised. I'm disgusted at they methods they use, it's mob mentality that lacks any reason and it ill serves the ideas they're trying to defend.


There's a great movie on Netflix called Ironclad. It's about the last Templars, and a group of English Nobles, who, after receiving a license from the King (The Magna Carta) guaranteeing their rights to rule their own lands as they see fit, witness the King go back on his word.

The King raises an army of loyalists, as well as Danish and Saxon Vikings, to fully reclaim his crown and execute those he deems traitors, but the Nobles and The Templars take a key castle, and hold it against all attacks.

They had to defend with vigor, for the attacks were equally vicious, and in addition were masked with deception, and subterfuge.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 02:54:03 PM
Quote from: GameDaddy;573096
There's a great movie on Netflix called Ironclad.


The nice thing about such movies is that one can grab up an axe and settle the matter one way or the other.

But here, but bully gang is endless and enternal. While reasonable people are few, quiet, and passing- for the simple reason that they know the battle isn't worth it and that they have better things to do.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 02:54:56 PM
Quote from: MGuy;573066
People who don't pretend to make an argument and are specifically out to drown out or just make fun of other people's playing styles (Benoist/Storm)...
I respond in kind.  The instant you started up with 'Wizards v Fighters' and the endlessly boring tirade about rules and 'player empowerment' as the pinnacle of gaming, you opened yourself to ridicule.  Let's not pretend you popped over here to have an open discussion or debate things in good faith.  Before you even heard of theRPGsite, you had 'the DM is the enemy of fun' engraved in your brain for over a decade.  You came here to proselytize, not to socialize.  When most of the responses were a rejection of you and your Denner cohort bringing DA TROOF, you doubled down on your efforts to convert the heathens to your catholicism by bringing out the big guns in an all out war against a gaming culture you absolutely won't tolerate.  This against a backdrop of repeatedly being told 'we don't have those problems, and here is why; perhaps adopting these would reduce your problems as well'.  Numerous times, people here told you to play how you want, but we aren't interested.  In every case, you felt called by the RNG to show us the error of our ways.  So, if you are going to now play the wounded little fucking lamb, you can jam that shit up your ass sideways.  

Go ahead and report back to the Goon Squad or your performance art teacher or what ever.  Black Vulmea welcomed you to the 'adult swim', and you surely had a chance to skim a few threads to get a feel for the place before shitting all over the keyboard.  You have nothing to be surprised about, and your 'poor pitiful me' routine is pure douchebaggery.

You are running really, really low on chances to redeem yourself and become a valuable contributor.  I predict you will double down again with the pity party, but you have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;573082
Telling someone that things work different  BEFORE they invest character resources is fair.  Telling them AFTER is  being a dick.
Unless they bring it with them and insist that they be allowed to play  it because it was created using RAW.  Which, if I am not mistaken, is a  pretty big deal with you folks.  So, there isn't always the chance to  tell them before they invest character resources.

But, you already knew that.  You excluded that part in the middle on purpose to bolster your 'all DMs are assholes' bullshit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 03:00:47 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573082
Telling someone that things work different BEFORE they invest character resources is fair.  Telling them AFTER is being a dick.
Unless they bring it with them and insist that they be allowed to play it because it was created using RAW.  Which, if I am not mistaken, is a pretty big deal with you folks.  So, there isn't always the chance to tell them before they invest character resources.

But, you already knew that.  You excluded that part in the middle on purpose to bolster your 'all DMs are assholes' bullshit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 03:06:13 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573098
But here, but bully gang is endless and enternal. While reasonable people are few, quiet, and passing- for the simple reason that they know the battle isn't worth it and that they have better things to do.
Then go back to your self imposed exile you whiny little cunt.  No one wants to hear your shrill pissing and moaning about the sand in your vagina because you are too much of an asshole to get along with people and your OCD game design appeals to pretty much just you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 03:07:03 PM
Quote from: CerilianSeeming;573094
The problem, as I see it, is that people who 'believe like you' have this unexplainable belief that DM's are out to get you.


The problem as I see it, is that many vocal voices on this forum in support of your position, like for example, you, believe based on no evidence whatsoever that anyone who fundamentally enjoys different things than them must actually enjoy all the things that you enjoy, but due to some moral failing, like believing the DM is bad, are trapped in their shitty beliefs.

You and everyone like you are wrong. We don't like being able to accomplish specific tasks without the DM's permission because we hate the DM. We like it for the completely separate reason that being able to accomplish actions without DM permission is to us an a priori good. That is what we are calling player empowerment.

I like the players to be able to do things without permission from the DM even when I am the DM, because we fundamentally like different things than you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 18, 2012, 03:18:48 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573104
You and everyone like you are wrong. We don't like being able to accomplish specific tasks without the DM's permission because we hate the DM. We like it for the completely separate reason that being able to accomplish actions without DM permission is to us an a priori good. That is what we are calling player empowerment.
No, that is called player whining because the social contract is unfair to assholes who don't abide by it and demand to perform their action because fuck 'authority', maaaan.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: LordVreeg on August 18, 2012, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: MGuy;573075
Then why are you not advocating following the rules of mentioned game to the people who are rallying against following the rules of the game?

As I've outlined obviously player empowerment (where there are definite things a player can definitely do in game, without explicit GM permission in order to have a solid effect on the plot) is something that came online most notably in 3rd. Seriously Mist quoted Storm talking about breaking the rules of the game on a player because that player built an unbeatable Diplomacy Bonus. Why aren't you saying anything against that kind of iron fisted GM wankery?


Well, taking this completely seriously and putting any judgement on the backburner, I translate this as "Mist quoted Storm playing the setting/game versus the system in game"  

I would always expect a GM to have described said issue ahead of time, making expectations clear.  I read this as the GM merely adjudicating what was set into place as the expectation ahead of time.

If you are talking about a game and setting where a the use of social skills was not talked about, or a very immature game where an"unbeatable Diplomacy Bonus" could actually be created, then I totally agree with you, it's a Dick Move to change the expectations of the game on players just because you are the GM.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 03:31:59 PM
Quote from: LordVreeg;573114
I would always expect a GM to have described said issue ahead of time, making expectations clear.  I read this as the GM merely adjudicating what was set into place as the expectation ahead of time.


Except that Storm was very clear that not only does he not ever explain this in advance, he specifically doesn't explain it in advance so that later he can punish people who believed he was operating under the rules when he didn't tell them otherwise because he loves to hurt people and make them cry.

Now, if someone on our side of the argument said something that absurd and extreme, Bedrock Brandon would criticize them for it. But since it's team no rules that is advocating explicit sadism, he is curiously silent.

And by curiously I mean hypocritically because he is a hypocrite.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573117
Now, if someone on our side of the argument said something that absurd and extreme, Bedrock Brandon would criticize them for it. But since it's team no rules that is advocating explicit sadism, he is curiously silent.

And by curiously I mean hypocritically because he is a hypocrite.

Kaelik I told you pretty explicitly on another thread I consider myself a partisan and therefore not unbiased on these discussions. Storm is a regular poster on this site who I have no trouble getting along with, you and a number of others have come here (all pretty much in the last month or two) to harp on GD talking points in a forum that you know is hostile to them. This is why I am more critical of you than Storm. I have no issue being a hypocrite on this matter because "yous guys" are trolling and just a hair short of being disruptive. That said, I still think I have been pretty reasonable and tried to take your points seriously. So while I haven't rushed to your defense when benoist or storm scream at you, I have made a point of not being insulting in my posts.

Also, i do not see what storm suggested as sadism. A rougher approach than i would take, but certainly not sadism. Really when you use language like that it is hard to take you seriously.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: LordVreeg on August 18, 2012, 03:43:47 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573117
Except that Storm was very clear that not only does he not ever explain this in advance, he specifically doesn't explain it in advance so that later he can punish people who believed he was operating under the rules when he didn't tell them otherwise because he loves to hurt people and make them cry.

Now, if someone on our side of the argument said something that absurd and extreme, Bedrock Brandon would criticize them for it. But since it's team no rules that is advocating explicit sadism, he is curiously silent.

And by curiously I mean hypocritically because he is a hypocrite.


Please stop making ths a 'team thing'.  Much as I mentioned to Mguy, earlier, that is wasting time.  None of us are wearing uniforms...

This was the quote in question.
Quote from: Stormbringer.

Player: "Ok, I will use my Diplomacy skill to convince him that we should get the king's own galleon for our personal use. My Diplomancy is 40 after all the bonuses and stuff, what is the DC?"

Viking Hat DM*: "Eight Million."

Huh, looks like that clever plan needs the DM's ok in 3.x, too. Guess what? That's how every fucking game works.


Where here does he say about expectations beforehand?  I really don't see it.  I am willing to be proven wrong here (as I certainly am not going to waste my time reading over the whole thread), but I think you might be projecting your opinion about his GMing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 03:46:47 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573104
being able to accomplish actions without DM permission is to us an a priori good.
Hmm.  Whenever I hear someone talking about gaming using the word "permission", to be honest I'm thinking there's a personal social power issue somewhere that gaming cannot address.

What do you consider DM "permission" vs. DM "whatever else you name DM role functions"?

Why, is being able to accomplish actions without DM "permission" an a priori good?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573121
Kaelik I told you pretty explicitly on another thread I consider myself a partisan and therefore not unbiased on these discussions. Storm is a regular poster on this site who I have no trouble getting along with,

And I'm perfectly free to point out your hypocrisy to undermine your attacks against the people you do attack. I don't know why you think being a hypocrite is a valid defense against an accusation of hypocrisy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573121
because "yous guys" are trolling and just a hair short of being disruptive.

You are an idiot. People having different opinions than you is not trolling. I'm sorry you feel like your circle jerking was disrupted by people not agreeing to give you a hand job, but no one from TGD (nor Mistborn) has been trolling or disruptive here. Only team bully attack forces responses have been either of those things.

And that's the point. Every time you make an accusation of trolling and disruption, I reserve the right to point out that you are actually an idiot who defends sadistic bullies when they are from your "team" and calls honest conversation trolling when it comes from anyone you don't like, because you are a fucking hypocrite.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573121
Also, i do not see what storm suggested as sadism. A rougher approach than i would take, but certainly not sadism. Really when you use language like that it is hard to take you seriously.

"I don't feel the need to give a heads up...

It's mostly just to see asshole players have a crying jag when their demands that the rules trump my decisions are shattered."

He specifically doesn't warn people because he wants to see them hurt.

That's textbook sadism.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 03:56:55 PM
I missed a few hundred Diplomacy posts, but...

Any DM who allows "Diplomancy" is an ignorant jackass.

A DM who realizes his error is a recovering jackass.  If he says "Damn, I really fucked the pooch on that one, Diplomacy Skill can't work like that, so you can reallocate points since we're going to be playing differently from here on out." he's doing his best to be fair in the face of recovering his sanity.

If he selectively defeats Diplomancy by making the DCs artifically high when he feels like it, and doesn't let you alter the points of a skill the rules of which he's changed, then he's a useless cock-knocker.  Rules can never prevent bad GMing or to put it another way "You can't fix Stupid."

If he does the recovering jackass thing - "announce rules change, make it stick from them forward and let the players adjust accordingly" and you whine about it, call him a shit-gm/cockblocker/DM-tyrant whatever phrases bounce around the echo-chamber these days, then you're the useless cock-knocker.

Pretty simple.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 03:58:11 PM
Quote from: LordVreeg;573122
Please stop making ths a 'team thing'.  Much as I mentioned to Mguy, earlier, that is wasting time.  None of us are wearing uniforms...

I didn't make it a Tome thing, Bedrock Brandon did when he decided to only attack people as trolls who he believes come from TGD, and defend sadists as long as they are regulars.

Quote from: LordVreeg;573122
This was the quote in question.

Where here does he say about expectations beforehand?  I really don't see it.  I am willing to be proven wrong here (as I certainly am not going to waste my time reading over the whole thread), but I think you might be projecting your opinion about his GMing.

No, the quote in question is, "I don't feel the need to give a heads up...

It's mostly just to see asshole players have a crying jag when their demands that the rules trump my decisions are shattered."

If you feel like going back a few pages, the ellipsis makes it more clear, but it was irrelevant for when I quoted the same thing to Bradon, so meh.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573124
Hmm.  Whenever I hear someone talking about gaming using the word "permission", to be honest I'm thinking there's a personal social power issue somewhere that gaming cannot address.

What do you consider DM "permission" vs. DM "whatever else you name DM role functions"?

Why, is being able to accomplish actions without DM "permission" an a priori good?

Yes, I know that you always no matter what believe that anyone who disagrees with you has social power issues. I already said that.

Any time the DM okays an action, that is the DM giving permission for it to occur. Any time the action does not have a specific effect without the DM deciding anything, it is DM permission. You can insert whatever word you want that doesn't make you think there are social power issues (there is none, because you always believe there are social power issues, because you believe it is impossible for someone to want something different from you want).

It is an a priori good because it is a thing that we like and want. That's what a priori means. We like being able to decide to do something, and know that it in fact happens the same way we conceptualized it without referring to someones else's judgment.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573126
If he selectively defeats Diplomancy by making the DCs artifically high when he feels like it, and doesn't let you alter the points of a skill the rules of which he's changed, then he's a useless cock-knocker.  Rules can never prevent bad GMing or to put it another way "You can't fix Stupid."

So will you explicitly state that Storm is a useless cock-knocker, since that's explicitly his position?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 18, 2012, 04:01:25 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573125
"I don't feel the need to give a heads up...

It's mostly just to see asshole players have a crying jag when their demands that the rules trump my decisions are shattered."

He specifically doesn't warn people because he wants to see them hurt.

That's textbook sadism.

Maybe a literal definition, I suppose, but that's like people diagnosing sugar'd up hyperactive kids as having ADHD.

Personally, I wouldn't expect someone to come to me with a character with that kind of diplomatic range, unless it was an epic game, and if they did, when I reviewed their character before starting I'd be like "WTF is this?  Get that crap out of here."  

On the whole Empowerment stuff, I'm perfectly happy to have players that I know and trust wander off and do their own roleplay sessions without me if I'm GM'ing.  But that's about all, small stuff.  The distinction comes when someone says 'Oh, hey, while you were in the loo we went and robbed the treasury, here's what we took'.  Because that's GM DISempowerment, and it's not going to happen in a game where I have to track and judge everything.  

Simply put, arguing with the GM in any instance is just BS and any table where it happens should just implode on itself.  It's a cardinal rule of the games, and it's been around since the first ones.  The GM is god, his word is law, no you may not argue.  You may plead your case, you may bribe, but arguing is RIGHT OUT.  You will lose it, and you will either lose your character or walk off in a huff, or both.

Now, as long as the player empowerment doesn't violate that, I'm fine with it.

a priori means 'without prior experience' and you can read more about it here (http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/)

Also, I'd watch the academia term-dropping, it sure won't earn you any respect here.  Keep that on whatever storygame board you picked it up at.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 18, 2012, 04:03:04 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;572896
Those books were essentially the dry run for 3rd Edition.


Combat & Tactics definitely was but I'm less certain about Skills & Powers. Most revolutionary things in S&P (pointbuy classes, split stats) never showed up in (mainstream?) 3.x. Maybe the skills system, I don't remember much detail about it. But I'd say Rolemaster contributed more to d20 than S&P in particular.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 04:10:05 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;573128
a priori means 'without prior experience' and you can read more about it here (http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/)


The things that we desire are things that we know independently of experience.

I mean, I'm sure I have spelled out all the necessary premises and conclusions of the following argument somewhere before now:

1) I subjectively like X.
Therefore: I subjectively like X.

So unless you think you have a pretty killer argument refuting premise 1, I will rest on my laurels that I have sufficiently argued for my own mental states.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 04:13:00 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573125

You are an idiot. People having different opinions than you is not trolling. I'm sorry you feel like your circle jerking was disrupted by people not agreeing to give you a hand job, but no one from TGD (nor Mistborn) has been trolling or disruptive here. Only team bully attack forces responses have been either of those things.


Kaelik, i am not an idiot, which is why I can say we are clearly being trolled by you, mcguy, wlakingDM and others. Now that is fine, there is no rule against trolling, but when a bunch of new posters arrive at roughly the same time to harp ont he same exact issues and do so in unison on the same threads, I don't need a smoking gun to call it trolling.

Plenty of posters here disagree with me and others, an I don't consider them trolls. In fact, I am usually pretty cautious about throwing the label around.



Quote


"I don't feel the need to give a heads up...

It's mostly just to see asshole players have a crying jag when their demands that the rules trump my decisions are shattered."

He specifically doesn't warn people because he wants to see them hurt.

That's textbook sadism.


I am sorry, while it isn't an approach to Gming i would endorse, it also is not sadism. When I think sadism, i think abuse and trauma. I don't think, the Gm didn't rule in my favor and he did it to annoy me. Perhaps its bad Gming, but it isn't sadism.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 04:13:03 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573062
But I don't dismiss them as theory-wankers.  I think that people that try to 'break' the game are doing a valuable service.  Designers should consider how they broke it and whether a fix is needed...
Any system needs the holes to be found, and no better way to find a hole then when you're trying to make one yourself.

However, for me, there's a line between "Beta-testing" and "playing".  I don't want my players acting like a "MMOGer on EQ Patch Day" running around consuming as much content as possible trying to take advantage of every undiscovered bug before it gets nerfed.

Helping me find bugs is helpful to the table as a whole.  Finding bugs inadvertantly while trying to game the system to your own exclusive benefit is helpful the way a thief is helpful for showing you that you needed a better security system, or a dog trained not to eat poisoned beef.  That kind of "help" I can live without in a social hobby, thanks.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 18, 2012, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573131
The things that we desire are things that we know independently of experience.

I mean, I'm sure I have spelled out all the necessary premises and conclusions of the following argument somewhere before now:

1) I subjectively like X.
Therefore: I subjectively like X.

So unless you think you have a pretty killer argument refuting premise 1, I will rest on my laurels that I have sufficiently argued for my own mental states.


I concur, however what your actual argument was went more along the lines of:

X is superior to Y.  All you fuckers should totally get that or you're neckbeard grognards.  Now why are you all defensive?

It's not the subject matter that's been at continual odds here, it's been the presentation.  Also, while I do agree that you've been mostly civil, your association with and defense of the two asshats hasn't helped any.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that if I spent some time on rooting through the other thread I could find where MGuy specifically derided me for expressing my opinion of my subjective experiences.  SO, my advice is that you should word your arguments more neutrally.  Sure, you'll still get the asshole post, but that doesn't mean that you can't ignore them and concentrate on responding to the productive responses.

e.g.: (And this is not intended to bring the argument here)  Hey, I really think that Fighters are underpowered compared to casters at higher levels.  Does anyone have some input about how I could make them more effective without overbalancing the game?

Taking an advisory approach to generating conversation automatically puts people into a mentorship role, which will make them more apt to engage in effective conversation than not.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573132
but when a bunch of new posters arrive at roughly the same time to harp ont he same exact issues and do so in unison on the same threads, I don't need a smoking gun to call it trolling.


Do you know what trolling means?

"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

1) Unlike repeatedly asking where the bad DM touched us, explaining what we call player empowerment and why we like it is not inflammatory.

2) Unlike repeatedly asking where the bad DM touched us, explaining what we call player empowerment is on topic.

3) Wonder of all wonders, sometimes when people talk about D&D on forums a lot, they do it because they enjoy talking about D&D on forums, and not because they are attempting to provoke emotional responses. It's especially easy to see, because unlike Storm/Declan who jump in with personal attacks when they have nothing else to say, MGuy, deadDM, Mistborn, and I only post specifically about things we like talking about to explain our views.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573132
I am sorry, while it isn't an approach to Gming i would endorse, it also is not sadism. When I think sadism, i think abuse and trauma. I don't think, the Gm didn't rule in my favor and he did it to annoy me. Perhaps its bad Gming, but it isn't sadism.


Well you can think of whatever you want, but when someone does something for the express purpose of causing other people pain because they enjoy the other person being in pain, that is sadism.

I'm not saying he's very good at it, or that he has seriously abused anyone. I'm just saying he derives pleasure from hurting others. Well, actually, he's saying that, and you are defending him as a good guy who only causes other people pain because he derives pleasure from it.

As compared to the people who actually need attacking, people who play D&D differently than you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 04:31:55 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;573136
I concur, however what your actual argument was went more along the lines of:

X is superior to Y.  All you fuckers should totally get that or you're neckbeard grognards.  Now why are you all defensive?


You are completely wrong, and an idiot. I have never at any point said anything like that, and I am not responsible for your inability to understand what I actually said.

I made it very clear that I have subjective preferences and never once said they were superior to other subjective preferences.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;573136
e.g.: (And this is not intended to bring the argument here)  Hey, I really think that Fighters are underpowered compared to casters at higher levels.  Does anyone have some input about how I could make them more effective without overbalancing the game?

Taking an advisory approach to generating conversation automatically puts people into a mentorship role, which will make them more apt to engage in effective conversation than not.


I have no need to phrase anything in an advisory manner in order to provoke mentorship because I do not have any such problem. I posted in this thread because Mistborn slightly misused a quote of mine, and I told him to use it correctly. Then he asked me a question, and I gave a sarcastic answer that at no point even in sarcasm ever expressed the superiority of my specific subjective preferences.

Then at least one person asked legitimate questions about what I was talking about, and I responded to that, because I do ignore Storm, except of course, to occasionally call out Brendan.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 04:50:47 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573127
Yes, I know that you always no matter what believe that anyone who disagrees with you has social power issues. I already said that.
So I stated I think a GM should choose the PrCs for his campaign, someone else quoted that's exactly the way they are supposed to work according to the DM Guide and LMB accuses me of wanting players to suck my cock.  Yeah, no social power issue there. None at all. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Kaelik;573127
Any time the DM okays an action, that is the DM giving permission for it to occur. Any time the action does not have a specific effect without the DM deciding anything, it is DM permission.
The DM okays all actions one way or another.  You declare intent to do something, the DM responds.  If part of that response is telling me there is something I wasn't aware of before that just became apparent and changes what I can do (like a ninja behind me), then that's what happens.  Was the ninja there before the DM declared it (legit) or did he toss the ninja out to "cockblock" you.  You'll never know. (Knowing you guys, you probably have calculated the CR already of everything you can see, and thus deduced there can't be anything else, because a higher CR would be "cheating", right?)

No rules set in existence can save you from a Shit GM.  If you want to no longer live in dread fear of the cockblock, you must do as the Storygamers do, and embrace Shared Narration.  Go from task resolution to conflict resolution.  Take control of the world, even eliminate the DM entirely.

Quote from: Kaelik;573127
It is an a priori good because it is a thing that we like and want. That's what a priori means. We like being able to decide to do something, and know that it in fact happens the same way we conceptualized it without referring to someones else's judgment.


Yeah I know the definition of a priori, but what I asked you was WHY?  As in, why do you like that?  Accepting something is just because you like it doesn't mean there is no reason why you like it.

Quote from: Kaelik;573127
So will you explicitly state that Storm is a useless cock-knocker, since that's explicitly his position?
Christ, I didn't want to read all the Diplomancer shit.  It looks like SB was saying that if someone came to his table bringing a Diplomancer Build, he'd let the guy play and tell him Diplomancy doesn't work whenever it eventually came up in the game.  Yes, those would be the actions of a useless cock-knocker.  My guess is, he'd probably not be such a dick when he wasn't trying to piss off people on the internet, but whatever.  BTW, pretty sure I called him way worse than that in the "Colonial Orc Thread".
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 04:55:01 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;573027
Best DM:  You aren't a special little snowflake, you are part of a team.  When you are done sobbing, blow your nose and get the fuck away from my table.

I don't feel the need to give a heads up, because good players don't pull shit like stacking the hell out of diplomacy, or showing up with some insane Pun-Pun knock-off and expect to be taken seriously.  They can GTFO too.

It's mostly just to see asshole players have a crying jag when their demands that the rules trump my decisions are shattered.


Let me open this by saying that you are a bad DM. In fact you are exactly the sort of bad DM that Kaelik and I are worried about. Not only did you just admit to abdicating your responsibility to be a fair arbitrator of the rules, you just admitted to warping a rule specifically to be abusive to one of your players. I can't say I'm surprised by this development it fits with the bullying tactics you've used in your responses on this forum. Fortunately the community at large tolerates aberrant personalities such as yourself, with the marked exception of this forum.

Quote from: StormBringer;573027
It's mostly just to see asshole players have a crying jag when their demands that the rules trump my decisions are shattered.

No, StormBringer. You are the Assholes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 18, 2012, 04:55:07 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573140
You are completely wrong, and an idiot. I have never at any point said anything like that, and I am not responsible for your inability to understand what I actually said.

I made it very clear that I have subjective preferences and never once said they were superior to other subjective preferences.

I have no need to phrase anything in an advisory manner in order to provoke mentorship because I do not have any such problem. I posted in this thread because Mistborn slightly misused a quote of mine, and I told him to use it correctly. Then he asked me a question, and I gave a sarcastic answer that at no point even in sarcasm ever expressed the superiority of my specific subjective preferences.

Then at least one person asked legitimate questions about what I was talking about, and I responded to that, because I do ignore Storm, except of course, to occasionally call out Brendan.


Well, then allow me to retort.

Quote from: Kaelik;550530
Everything you have ever said, but most especially this is wrong.

Dead wrong. Stupid Wrong. Stop wanking. Stop wanking to your wankfest hatred of the rules. Stop wanking to your wanktastic wanking of circumstances that don't exist and you refuse to explain. Stop wanking to how everyone else must and only can experience the things that you have personally experienced. Stop wanking.

See that number there? The one in your post? The one that says "99%"?

That's you claiming to speak for 99% of all the people who have played games. Guess what, you aren't 99%. This is not subjective. It is objectively true that you are not 99%. You are .00001%. Stop wanking.

The problem here is not that other people are playing the rules and not the game. The problem is that other people play the game. Many people who play the game, in fact, the vast majority of them, have had this problem. They have this problem during actual play, around the game table, under campaign specific circumstances. Stop wanking.

The reason people talk about this problem, is because they've seen this problem.

Frank has played D&D, he's seen this problem. Mguy has played D&D, he's seen this problem. fectin has played D&D, he's seen this problem. I've played D&D, I've seen this problem. The hundreds of people who post about it on the internet have played D&D, they have seen this problem. undoubtedly a large number of people who have played D&D but never posted on the internet have seen this problem. Stop wanking.

When you say that it is irrelevant to 99% of people playing the game, you are wrong. You are either a lying liar, or you are an idiot. Those are the only two options.

This thread was made by someone to discuss ways to fix a problem that exists between Fighters and Wizards that he saw. Since that post, many posters have posted about how they too have seen this problem. About how this problem is relevant to them.

You have consistently and maliciously attacked anyone who has every encountered the problem as having no imagination, as being a wanker, as having never played D&D, as not understanding actual play.

You are wrong. All these people play D&D in actual play, around a table, under campaign specific circumstances.

They are not telling you that you must have encountered this problem too. They have never once said that. But you have consistently and maliciously attacked them, insisting over and over that they could not possibly have had such experiences.

You are a whiny vindictive bully who insists on attacking others for the crime of having different experiences.

The problem is not that other people do not understand actual play. The problem is that you claim to speak for everyone when you clearly do not.

Stop pumping furiously with your hand on your dick while frothing at the mouth long enough to realize that you do not speak for everyone. The evidence shows that this problem is extremely relevant to a large number of people.

Stop wanking.


Your VERY FIRST POST is an abuse-ridden tirade directed at an admin.  I suppose that there's some argument in there, but when you look at how you've presented yourself from the very beginning, how can you conceivably argue that you've been simply stating your arguments in the face of being ganged up on?  That's like wondering why it is that you got your ass beat after walking into the San Francisco Gold's Gym and screaming about how you hate fags.

I'm just going to have to state that you're an asshole, a posteriori.  

Now, refute me, ass-monkey.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 05:02:04 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573082
My favorite character from the A-Team is Face.  If I try to make a smooth-talking con man, I'm likely to put skill ranks and/or feats into bluff and diplomacy.  If I find out that no matter how many resources I put in, I can only succeed if I say the magic word (ie, you get the boat if you tell the King that you'll bring back the white whale) but can get it in no other way, then I don't need to put ranks or feats into those skills...  I can have a +0 modifier, but figure out the magic word and STILL accomplish what I wanted to.


Just as an aside, I'd like to present a non-D&D specific answer to this point.

There is a type of skill resolution in some games, let's call it Skill Threshold, that deals with this sort of interaction. In that method, the GM decides that the King needs the white whale in order to offer up the boat AND that a character requesting the boat needs a Diplomacy of Rank 6 (to pick a value out of the air) in order to convince the King that he's the guy for the job (and the boat).

This method makes use of both the character's skill levels, and the needs and desires of the NPC as defined by the GM.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 05:14:33 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;550530
Everything you have ever said, but most especially this is wrong.

Dead wrong. Stupid Wrong. Stop wanking. Stop wanking to your wankfest hatred of the rules. Stop wanking to your wanktastic wanking of circumstances that don't exist and you refuse to explain. Stop wanking to how everyone else must and only can experience the things that you have personally experienced. Stop wanking.

See that number there? The one in your post? The one that says "99%"?

That's you claiming to speak for 99% of all the people who have played games. Guess what, you aren't 99%. This is not subjective. It is objectively true that you are not 99%. You are .00001%. Stop wanking.

The problem here is not that other people are playing the rules and not the game. The problem is that other people play the game. Many people who play the game, in fact, the vast majority of them, have had this problem. They have this problem during actual play, around the game table, under campaign specific circumstances. Stop wanking.

The reason people talk about this problem, is because they've seen this problem.

Frank has played D&D, he's seen this problem. Mguy has played D&D, he's seen this problem. fectin has played D&D, he's seen this problem. I've played D&D, I've seen this problem. The hundreds of people who post about it on the internet have played D&D, they have seen this problem. undoubtedly a large number of people who have played D&D but never posted on the internet have seen this problem. Stop wanking.

When you say that it is irrelevant to 99% of people playing the game, you are wrong. You are either a lying liar, or you are an idiot. Those are the only two options.

This thread was made by someone to discuss ways to fix a problem that exists between Fighters and Wizards that he saw. Since that post, many posters have posted about how they too have seen this problem. About how this problem is relevant to them.

You have consistently and maliciously attacked anyone who has every encountered the problem as having no imagination, as being a wanker, as having never played D&D, as not understanding actual play.

You are wrong. All these people play D&D in actual play, around a table, under campaign specific circumstances.

They are not telling you that you must have encountered this problem too. They have never once said that. But you have consistently and maliciously attacked them, insisting over and over that they could not possibly have had such experiences.

You are a whiny vindictive bully who insists on attacking others for the crime of having different experiences.

The problem is not that other people do not understand actual play. The problem is that you claim to speak for everyone when you clearly do not.

Stop pumping furiously with your hand on your dick while frothing at the mouth long enough to realize that you do not speak for everyone. The evidence shows that this problem is extremely relevant to a large number of people.

Stop wanking.

Sempai I think I'm falling in love with you all over again.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 18, 2012, 05:19:50 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573151
Sempai I think I'm falling in love with you all over again.


Ew.  Take it to PM's, Yaoi-kun.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 18, 2012, 05:25:46 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;573136
I concur, however what your actual argument was went more along the lines of:

X is superior to Y.  All you fuckers should totally get that or you're neckbeard grognards.  Now why are you all defensive?


May I remind everyone here of the title of the thread.  

I stayed out of it for a couple pages while everyone thread crapped about how they don't like people who play 3rd edition.  

Considering the vitriol that started this, anyone who actually likes 3.5 to any degree seems to have a valid reason for responding in kind.  However, that's not productive.  Instead of discussing what assholes people are for liking 3.5, or how 3.5 is specifically designed to appeal to assholes, the conversation has turned, rather surprisingly, to some of the perceived benefits of the system.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 05:28:37 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;573146
Your VERY FIRST POST is an abuse-ridden tirade directed at an admin.  I suppose that there's some argument in there, but when you look at how you've presented yourself from the very beginning, how can you conceivably argue that you've been simply stating your arguments in the face of being ganged up on?  That's like wondering why it is that you got your ass beat after walking into the San Francisco Gold's Gym and screaming about how you hate fags.

I'm just going to have to state that you're an asshole, a posteriori.  

Now, refute me, ass-monkey.

Well, the simplest possible refutation is that literally no part of that is in conflict with what I said, IE: "I made it very clear that I have subjective preferences and never once said they were superior to other subjective preferences."

In fact, I very clearly specifically attacked Benoist for thinking his subjective experiences are the only experiences that can be had, "They are not telling you that you must have encountered this problem too. They have never once said that. But you have consistently and maliciously attacked them, insisting over and over that they could not possibly have had such experiences."

I certainly never claimed that I'm not mean to bullying assholes. I mean, I went out of my way to point out Brendan's hypocrisy, of course I would insult an asshole bully as well.

But some further comments on the issue:

1) Benoist is a mod, HAHAHA, no wonder the default behavior here is bullying, it's rewarded with modship.

2) But yes, my very first post was an abuse ridden tirade in defense of those being bullied by the bully squad on this forum. That's because I don't like bullies.

In the future, this problem can fixed by people on this forum not spending 20 pages bullying people for liking different D&D.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573151
Sempai I think I'm falling in love with you all over again.

It's much better in context, since I don't usually use the word wank, but Benoist was bullying people by calling them wankers/wanking/ect for like 20 pages before I posted, so in the context of the discussion, no one could possibly call my post insulting without admitting that Benoist was doing the same thing for 20 pages.

Which is why the first time someone has complained about my "abuse ridden tirade" as being abusive is now. Since Benoist certainly didn't since all I did is copy him.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 05:30:32 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;573152
Ew.  Take it to PM's, Yaoi-kun.


What can I say I love a good rhetorical take-down, and I've just watched a lot of Yuru Yuri. In general denners will give you a counter-argument and insults, posters here seem to be missing the counter-argument and oddly obsessed with autism.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 05:40:07 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573124
What do you consider DM "permission" vs. DM "whatever else you name DM role functions"?

Why, is being able to accomplish actions without DM "permission" an a priori good?


If I may, I'd like to present a different answer to this as I think Kaelik and the others have done a poor job here (it being rather difficult to do a good job when they're under the type of personal attacks such as those found in the post that opens this thread). I'd like to attempt to explain where they are coming from in more level headed way.



DM permission/Player empowerment can be viewed in a number of ways. But what's important is that it represents a conflict of goals where the GM is denying the players what is often an important or even their primary desire in an RPG.

A lack of Player empowerment may be seen when players are not allowed to win through one's own skilled use of tactics and game play as allowed by the rules, for the GM is one who alters, adds and subtracts from those rules at his whim (i.e. a 'Rulings not Rules' GM).

Thus any victory is marred, as it was made possible by the GM's personal interference (i.e. 'rulings not rules') in play, and any loss may have been forced upon the player- again by the GM's interference ('rulings not rules') in play. This is true no matter if the GM is acting in good or bad faith, in the player's favor, opposed or neutral.

Some players would rather have it be the case that they are solely responsible (as much as that is possible, and as limited by the dice) for the success and failures of their characters. They do this by having access to completely objective rules used to resolve their key decisions (key decisions is normally combat, but it may be other things) that are not altered in play in any way.

Things get more complex when dealing with a game that front loads many factors of success into initial character design such as D&D. In this case a GM who disallows certain options given by the rules is seen as directly opposing the players goal of success by his own hand. Sadly, there is no other way of viewing it as that is the result, even if the GM had a completely valid setting or other unrelated reason for the denial.

IMO, this unavoidable conflict is a serious fault in game design, if an unintended one. It is best handled in tasteful manner between adults, without charges of OCD or the like being hurled. In short, the players and the GM should reach agreement in the character generation phase as to what is in the best interest of the campaign instead of yelling at each other.

Here on this board we're not a bunch of players in the same campaign working things out. We're a bunch of people defending whatever side of that question that is most important to us against all comers- and some of us are being real jerks while doing so.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 18, 2012, 05:42:25 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573156
What can I say I love a good rhetorical take-down, and I've just watched a lot of Yuru Yuri. In general denners will give you a counter-argument and insults, posters here seem to be missing the counter-argument and oddly obsessed with autism.


You're not doing much for the 'Mistborn isn't one of us!' argument with that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 18, 2012, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573155
Well, the simplest possible refutation is that literally no part of that is in conflict with what I said, IE: "I made it very clear that I have subjective preferences and never once said they were superior to other subjective preferences."



Except that you never stated your viewpoints until 1100 posts later in the thread, after someone specifically asked for them.  

Also, I was asking you to refute something I should've stated more clearly:

You are taking the standpoint of the injured party under false pretenses, claiming that you were simply stating your opinion, and were ganged up on by the regulars here (to the extent that even Rum Cove was wondering about when he should expect his biker colors and switchblade) who you then felt the express need to heap insults on.

From the evidence available from your post history, clearly this isn't the case and you've been specifically shit stirring the whole time, using inflammatory arguments to threadcrap.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 05:46:01 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;573161
You're not doing much for the 'Mistborn isn't one of us!' argument with that.


He wasn't one of us, but it's not like he has any specific objection to becoming one of us.

Certainly once upon a time I was not a Denizen, but I am now. There has to be a before at some point.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 18, 2012, 05:49:33 PM
Then they are looking at the wrong game, because -this- game specifically says rulings, not rules.  Now it might not directly, specifically say it in such blunt terms as it did in Gary's day, but the clear progression was there and the history is laid bare for all to see.  If this is not what these players want...

Might I suggest Dungeon!.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 05:52:48 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573137
Do you know what trolling means?

"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

1) Unlike repeatedly asking where the bad DM touched us, explaining what we call player empowerment and why we like it is not inflammatory.

2) Unlike repeatedly asking where the bad DM touched us, explaining what we call player empowerment is on topic.

3) Wonder of all wonders, sometimes when people talk about D&D on forums a lot, they do it because they enjoy talking about D&D on forums, and not because they are attempting to provoke emotional responses. It's especially easy to see, because unlike Storm/Declan who jump in with personal attacks when they have nothing else to say, MGuy, deadDM, Mistborn, and I only post specifically about things we like talking about to explain our views.

.


Any definition of trolling that doesn't include storming a board to spam an agenda is not a good definition.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 05:53:52 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;573162
You are taking the standpoint of the injured party under false pretenses, claiming that you were simply stating your opinion, and were ganged up on by the regulars here (to the extent that even Rum Cove was wondering about when he should expect his biker colors and switchblade) who you then felt the express need to heap insults on.


Once again, you should stop just adding things I have never said onto your conception.

I have stated my opinion in many threads and been ganged up on by regulars. I have watched others be ganged up on by regulars. That doesn't mean I have never done anything besides state my opinion.

The reason that Storms arbitrary bullying is worthy of mockery is because:

1) He's really bad at it.
2) He has no accompanying argument.
3) He is wrong.

Contrary to that, my attack on Benoist was against a bully who deserved it, and was accompanied by the argument that Benoist should stop deliberately misreading other people talking about their subjective experiences as a statement about how his experiences aren't real.

Which is effectively the same argument I have made to you, but unlike Benoist, you have not been being a bully for 20 pages, so I have felt free to be much nicer about it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 05:55:13 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573166
Any definition of trolling that doesn't include storming a board to spam an agenda is not a good definition.


This board needs people to storm it (talking about common concepts and styles in the RPG world), it's too stagnate otherwise. You can see that in the generally poor quality of the response here and the inability to understand any but a very narrow play style.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573163
He wasn't one of us, but it's not like he has any specific objection to becoming one of us.

Certainly once upon a time I was not a Denizen, but I am now. There has to be a before at some point.


Like I said before I'm from the WotC boards. I used to lurk there in the halcyon days pre-4e. So while I think the Book of Weeaboo Fightan' Magic is the best thing since sliced bread, they gravitate more to Frank's Tome series for their fighter fixes. That said I'm with them if they want me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 18, 2012, 06:03:36 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573166
Any definition of trolling that doesn't include storming a board to spam an agenda is not a good definition.


But joining a board to discuss an issue that's important to you?  

It's funny.  I've been called a 'denner' more times than I can count.  I don't really mind - I don't understand it's use as an insult.  But it's funny because I stumbled upon both boards at roughly the same time.  I was lurking on the den for maybe 2 weeks before FrankTrollman pointed me here, but effectively, there is no reason to consider me a 'denner' anymore than people from the gaming den should consider me a 'rpgsiter' or whatever they call you when they're not calling you a neck-beard or grognard.  

But the thing is, people go where the conversation they want to have is being had.  For all the accusations of 'echo-chamber' and such, I'm getting a lot of grief for trying to discuss my views in a place where I know they're not 'popular'.  Moving outside of the echo chamber should be something the people here would encourage, but I feel that's not been the case.  

Recent calls to 'go to the kids table' or otherwise find somewhere else to post (and clearly, not everyone is inviting me to leave the site - but I feel like there are at least a few who seem to be saying it would be preferable for them) seem to imply that having this discussion is somehow a problem - even when the site is actively soliciting new members with the promise of 'real discussions with no excessive bans'.  

If anything, this site has tried to be welcoming to people from a number of boards with opinions generally different from those of the regular posters here, but once arrived, they're accused of trolling.  Did people only want people to come along who already agreed with them?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 06:05:52 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573170
This board needs people to storm it (talking about common concepts and styles in the RPG world), it's too stagnate otherwise. You can see that in the generally poor quality of the response here and the inability to understand any but a very narrow play style.


I agree that some outside perspective would be healthy for therpgsite, but I don't think being stormed by an even more insolated group of gamers is at all helpful. The gaming den reflects an extreme minority viewpoint in the hobby (in fact i think i have only ever met one gamer in real life that resembles anyone from TGD). I dont think adopting the prejudices or narrow playstyle of the den would make us any more open minded, it would jst give us more styles to dislike.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 06:08:36 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573176
But joining a board to discuss an issue that's important to you?  ?


You have been one of the more reasonable ones but, yes its trolling if a bunch of posters swarm a site all at once to promote an agenda. Its not that you come here to talk about stuff that interests you that makesyou a troll, it is that you all came at pretty much the same time and are all on the same page. It would be like if six posters all showed up at theforge in the same month to rave about immersion. Its obvious trolling.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 06:11:38 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573177
I agree that some outside perspective would be healthy for therpgsite, but I don't think being stormed by an even more insolated group of gamers is at all helpful.


I think it's been very helpful.

It's revealed the worst that therpgsite has to offer, giving it a chance to change it ways. And gives it a chance to actually examine the ideas of the charOP crowd looking for its reasoning while searching for a means of coming to common ground.

We may be dealing with a couple of extreme examples- but even extreme examples represent a greater number of silent gamers behind them. Frankly, the way therpgsite treats people- the extreme ones are the only ones willing to step up to bat. If you want more moderate types, you have to show that you're not going to wolf pack them like what's been done in this thread.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573179
You have been one of the more reasonable ones but, yes its trolling if a bunch of posters swarm a site all at once to promote an agenda. Its not that you come here to talk about stuff that interests you that makesyou a troll, it is that you all came at pretty much the same time and are all on the same page. It would be like if six posters all showed up at theforge in the same month to rave about immersion. Its obvious trolling.


No, that's the point, it's not trolling.

No definition of trolling includes "people talking about the things they want to talk about."

The fact that four people who know each other all clicked the same link on a thread they normally read is not trolling. It just means that four of the 56 people who clicked that link felt like they had something to say.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 06:15:18 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573177
I agree that some outside perspective would be healthy for therpgsite, but I don't think being stormed by an even more insolated group of gamers is at all helpful. The gaming den reflects an extreme minority viewpoint in the hobby (in fact i think i have only ever met one gamer in real life that resembles anyone from TGD). I dont think adopting the prejudices or narrow playstyle of the den would make us any more open minded, it would jst give us more styles to dislike.


If the TGD folks see things differently than the average gamer it's because most of them are armchair game designer. For a minmaxer like me trap options like the 3e Monk don't bother me because I know enough not to take them. People at the den go "this is a trap option, having trap options is bad game design" and the probably something about cocks and barrels.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 06:18:52 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573181
I think it's been very helpful.

It's revealed the worst that therpgsite has to offer, giving it a chance to change it ways. And gives it a chance to actually examine the ideas of the charOP crowd looking for its reasoning while searching for a means of coming to common ground.

We may be dealing with a couple of extreme examples- but even extreme examples represent a greater number of silent gamers behind them. Frankly, the way therpgsite treats people- the extreme ones are the only ones willing to step up to bat. If you want more moderate types, you have to show that you're not going to wolf pack them like what's been done in this thread.


I think we will just have to disagree on the value added to the site. I think posters like deadDm could be very valuable here. But the fact that have had multiple threads revolving around the same basic arguments since they arrived, is not a good thing in my mind. I like being challenged. I like seeing different points of view. But these threads are not good faith arguments, except in a handful of moments, on either side. They are just classic flamewars.

That said, I think they should be free to troll as they have been. My only point was to kaelik. That he shouldn't be surprised or expect sympathy when people go on the attack and "bully" when he storms a site to troll it. A bunch of people all came in around the same time, advancing the same agenda, so naturally the regular posters here are bit hostile.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 06:22:29 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573182


The fact that four people who know each other all clicked the same link on a thread they normally read is not trolling. It just means that four of the 56 people who clicked that link felt like they had something to say.


Sorry, wasn't born yesterday :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 06:23:49 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573185
A bunch of people all came in around the same time, advancing the same agenda, so naturally the regular posters here are bit hostile.


These posters don't need groups to show up, they are immediately hostile to individuals (I'm an excellent case in point). They hate different ideas and styles, pure and simple and go about displaying that in most ugly way possible with the point of the spear position taken by a site moderator.

And the multiple threads you're talking about often have a site regular as OP, continuing the attack from previous threads.

Step back and actually look at what's happening Brendan.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 06:26:18 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573186
Sorry, wasn't born yesterday :)

But you clearly are an idiot who is so committed to hating us that you absolutely refuse to see what is actually going on.

You can actually read every conversation MGuy and I have ever had on TGD, and unsurprisingly, exactly zero of them are about how we are going to team up to trick the people of therpgsite into... whatever you think is our secret conspiratorial end goal is.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573185
That he shouldn't be surprised or expect sympathy when people go on the attack and "bully" when he storms a site to troll it. A bunch of people all came in around the same time, advancing the same agenda, so naturally the regular posters here are bit hostile.

I really feel like I could see you defending gulags.

I've been ignoring all your "agenda" comments because I don't even know what agenda you think we are trying to advance, but even supposing we were all working towards the same goal, your definition of trolling includes every single time multiple new members join a forum from the same source.

That's a stupid definition. You should try coming up with a better one.

But yes, if "a bunch" IE, three-four new people showed up at the same time advancing the same agenda... that would be no reason to result to bullying attacks on them constantly over the course of months.

Do you think you are the only forum on the internet? TGD gets people like this all the time. I recall one time where like 5 people showed up about the same time talking about the same thing.

One of them was MGuy, and we didn't murder him in his sleep or declare war on him, because he, and they, were just some people talking about D&D.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 06:28:18 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573147
Just as an aside, I'd like to present a non-D&D specific answer to this point.

There is a type of skill resolution in some games, let's call it Skill Threshold, that deals with this sort of interaction. In that method, the GM decides that the King needs the white whale in order to offer up the boat AND that a character requesting the boat needs a Diplomacy of Rank 6 (to pick a value out of the air) in order to convince the King that he's the guy for the job (and the boat).

This method makes use of both the character's skill levels, and the needs and desires of the NPC as defined by the GM.
Bolding mine.  Point below.

Quote from: gleichman;573159
A lack of Player empowerment may be seen when players are not allowed to win through one's own skilled use of tactics and game play as allowed by the rules, for the GM is one who alters, adds and subtracts from those rules at his whim (i.e. a 'Rulings not Rules' GM).
See above.  Even if you played in an impossible game where there was indeed a rule for everything to be followed, the GM decides things, many things, all the time.  Gleichman your players play in a game you wrote.  I'm sure at least one them at some point in time has trusted you to interpret the rules for them without having them internalized yet.

No rules set can protect a player from a Bad GM.

Quote from: gleichman;573159
Thus any victory is marred, as it was made possible by the GM's personal interference (i.e. 'rulings not rules') in play, and any loss may have been forced upon the player- again by the GM's interference ('rulings not rules') in play. This is true no matter if the GM is acting in good or bad faith, in the player's favor, opposed or neutral.
Any encounter, no matter how perfect the rules set, is going to have some intangibles. The players can dramatically increase the time played at the table by properly making sure every single one is correct, or they can assume that things were legit "within the Margin of Error".  Really, most of the Sturm und Drang in this thread is the inability of people to accept that other people have different acceptable tolerances for that "Margin of Error".

Quote from: gleichman;573159
Things get more complex when dealing with a game that front loads many factors of success into initial character design such as D&D.
Elegant way of saying "Build". :D  

Quote from: gleichman;573159
In this case a GM who disallows certain options given by the rules is seen as directly opposing the players goal of success by his own hand. Sadly, there is no other way of viewing it as that is the result, even if the GM had a completely valid setting or other unrelated reason for the denial.
This is where the wheels come off the wagon.  If someone wants to play a class or PrC they read about in a splat somewhere, I take a look at it and decide this class simply doesn't fit the campaign, or needs to be reworked to fit in the campaign, I'm making a completely impartial decision in favor of the campaign's reality.  Any player who can't see  that, or accept that, is making decisions like a child, not an adult.  Period.

Quote from: gleichman;573159
IMO, this unavoidable conflict is a serious fault in game design, if an unintended one.
A mass market game like D&D has to support not one setting or even one broad setting assumption, but many different settings.  That, and the desire for money, means WotC puts out thousands of pages of optional rules, so that by using the right combo, you can get the campaign you want.  The marketing people are one thing, but I'm sure if you asked one of the WotC Splatbook authors if they intended all those rules to be mandatory in every GM's campaign, they'd look at you like you were crazy.

Quote from: gleichman;573159
It is best handled in tasteful manner between adults, without charges of OCD or the like being hurled. In short, the players and the GM should reach agreement in the character generation phase as to what is in the best interest of the campaign instead of yelling at each other. Here on this board we're not a bunch of players in the same campaign working things out. We're a bunch of people defending whatever side of that question that is most important to us against all comers- and some of us are being real jerks while doing so.
Yeah, unfortunately, the Internet is the Internet.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Traveller on August 18, 2012, 06:30:22 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573188
These posters don't need groups to show up, they are immediately hostile to individuals (I'm an excellent case in point).

No, you just like arguing. That a mod participates in these discussions means nothing unless they are actually moderating. You know, like that Kai Tave character over on rpgnet, who uses his mod powers with all the flair and élan of a juvenile in a playground wearing a monitor sash, except without the excuse of youth to explain the excesses.

I have to say though, this place is starting to look like forum: the edition wars.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 06:40:25 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573188
These posters don't need groups to show up, they are immediately hostile to individuals (I'm an excellent case in point). They hate different ideas and styles, pure and simple and go about displaying that in most ugly way possible with the point of the spear position taken by a site moderator.

And the multiple threads you're talking about often have a site regular as OP, continuing the attack from previous threads.

Step back and actually look at what's happening Brendan.


I think your posting style, rather than your message, is why folks are hostile to you. You do tend to label people who don't play your way as intellectual inferiors...that will rub people the wrong way. I am not saying therpgsite is tame but I dont think you are the best example for the point you are trying to make.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 06:44:42 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573190
Even if you played in an impossible game where there was indeed a rule for everything to be followed, the GM decides things, many things, all the time.


Indeed, a traditional RPG is played at many levels- I have a whole article on that very fact hidden somewhere.

However it is quite possible to define what actions are covered solely by the rules, and which are covered solely the GM, and which are covered by a mix of both.

And it is quite possible to play the game according to those definitions. For years I've played in and ran games where the GM *never* alters a rule in the middle of combat. It isn't done. Player success thus never depends upon the GM.

In other areas, the GM has full control. Control granted by the rules (generally by not covering the subject at all) and the social contract of the individual group.


Quote from: CRKrueger;573190

Gleichman your players play in a game you wrote.  I'm sure at least one them at some point in time has trusted you to interpret the rules for them without having them internalized yet.


They generally trust fellow players (and I may be a fellow player when I'm not GM). As GM I only note when a rule isn't followed, or someone is adding a rule that doesn't exist. Very rare event actually.


Quote from: CRKrueger;573190

No rules set can protect a player from a Bad GM.


It's never been a question of protection from a Bad GM. If you'd give up on that thought things will be clearer. It's doing something on your own without the GM's help.


Quote from: CRKrueger;573190

Any encounter, no matter how perfect the rules set, is going to have some intangibles.


I've often asked people to find these intangibles in the two game systems I use. They have yet to be shown to me, being either fully covered in the rules, or fully covered by the GM's normal responsiblity a defined by those rules.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573190

This is where the wheels come off the wagon.  If someone wants to play a class or PrC they read about in a splat somewhere, I take a look at it and decide this class simply doesn't fit the campaign, or needs to be reworked to fit in the campaign, I'm making a completely impartial decision in favor of the campaign's reality.  Any player who can't see  that, or accept that, is making decisions like a child, not an adult.  Period.


I'm sorry, but your good intentions and wise campaign decisions have nothing to do with it. The player seeking success by his own hand is doing exactly what the game design told him to do. Front-Load the best character he can. You are standing in his way. The reason for doing so doesn't matter.

Both sides are going to have to step back and knowing the cause of the conflict, come to an agreement. Something impossible to do with people who don't even play in your game but are posting online.

Edit: Btw, I wouldn't use or play in a system that front-loaded in this way. I consider it bad design.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 06:45:23 PM
Quote
But you clearly are an idiot who is so committed to hating us that you absolutely refuse to see what is actually going on.
You keep saying this about one of the most moderate and sensible posters here and you wonder why I don't even care what words come out of your mouth, let alone care enough to wonder if you have an actual defensible point of view.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 06:45:53 PM
+PenzerKraken

Your Avatar would be Toshiro Mifune, the premiere Samurai actor in Akira Kurasawa Samurai movies,.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 06:47:01 PM
Quote from: The Traveller;573191
No, you just like arguing. That a mod participates in these discussions means nothing unless they are actually moderating. You know, like that Kai Tave character over on rpgnet, who uses his mod powers with all the flair and élan of a juvenile in a playground wearing a monitor sash, except without the excuse of youth to explain the excesses.

I have to say though, this place is starting to look like forum: the edition wars.


Nah, if it were Edition Wars there would be actual rules talked about.  This is pure Culture War, where is nothing more then "Your Culture Sucks/Your Culture Swallows." for 18,000 posts across 12 threads.

We had another "STGs are really RPGs" assault, a major campaign of "Cult of Raw" vs. "Rulings not Rules", a broader clash of Board Cultures, and a metric fuckton of "Enemy of my Enemy" specops actions opportunistically used to settle old scores all over the place.  :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 06:48:32 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573195
I think your posting style, rather than your message, is why folks are hostile to you. You do tend to label people who don't play your way as intellectual inferiors...


I say what I believe, and people here label themselves in response. It's their weakness that is showing, not my superiority.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 07:00:48 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573181
We may be dealing with a couple of extreme examples- but even extreme examples represent a greater number of silent gamers behind them. Frankly, the way therpgsite treats people- the extreme ones are the only ones willing to step up to bat. If you want more moderate types, you have to show that you're not going to wolf pack them like what's been done in this thread.


There's no Wolf Pack here... except for the ones that very recently showed up.

The way RPGSite treats people (and new people) is just fine. New Posters should know though, that if they are going to make outrageous claims about game mechanics and game design, that they will be called out.

Having a GM make a bad call about an event in a game once in awhile, is much better than not having a GM at all. In 35 years of gaming, I have not witnessed firsthand a single game, without a GM, that ended well, for one or more of the participants.    

When you have no GM. All the players that are secretly interested in being the GM, step up to the plate, and influence the game, leading the other players indirectly, where they will.

How is that good for any roleplaying game?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 07:01:37 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573197
And it is quite possible to play the game according to those definitions. For years I've played in and ran games where the GM *never* alters a rule in the middle of combat. It isn't done. Player success thus never depends upon the GM.
Sets the stage, yes.  Alters rules in the middle of a combat, on the fly? No.  Who does that?  You have a post where someone gives an example of doing just that?

Quote from: gleichman;573197
I've often asked people to find these intangibles in the two game systems I use. They have yet to be shown to me, being either fully covered in the rules, or fully covered by the GM's normal responsiblity a defined by those rules.
I haven't bought your game, the other one is Hero 5th I assume, which I do not have, so I'll take your word on it, however, that "fully covered by the GM's normal responsibility as defined by those rules." can cover a lot of things.  As we'll get to in a minute.

Quote from: gleichman;573197
I'm sorry, but your good intentions and wise campaign decisions have nothing to do with it. The player seeking success by his own hand is doing exactly what the game design told him to do. Front-Load the best character he can. You are standing in his way. The reason for doing so doesn't matter.
Almost sounds like you're making an argument against 3e here.  "Basically if you play 3e you deserve what you get"?  Maybe, but remember "fully covered by the GM's normal responsibility as defined by those rules."?  According to 3.5e part of that responsibility is clearly defined as deciding what PrCs fit his campaign, the exact page and quote is here somewhere.  Players should come to the table expecting the DM to have the right to judge what PrCs are allowed, as the rules clearly define that responsibility as the DMs.

The only reason you wouldn't accept what the rules actually state as standard operating procedure is if you are starting from the opinion that the DM is your natural enemy, out to get you, prevent your fun, whatever.  Hence...No rules can save you from a Bad GM.  There's that whole social contract/trust thing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 07:02:23 PM
Quote from: GameDaddy;573206
Having a GM make a bad call about an event in a game once in awhile, is much better than not having a GM at all. In 35 years of gaming, I have not witness firsthand a single game, without a GM, that ended well, for one or more of the participants.


Do you read what other people say? At all?

I ask because you suddenly started talking about GMless games as if anyone else at any point was talking about that at all.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: GameDaddy;573206
The way RPGSite treats people (and new people) is just fine. New Posters should know though, that if they are going to make outrageous claims about game mechanics and game design, that they will be called out.


Yes...

Outrageous means being different.

Called out means insults of OCD, aspergers, cunt and worst. All by the same five or six people.

Got it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 18, 2012, 07:05:35 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573209
Yes...

Outrageous means being different.

Called out means insults of OCD, aspergers, cunt and worst. All by the same five or six people.

Got it.

Not necessarily.

You are totally OCD assburger though, I'll give you that. You're the guy who can't fathom playing the game verbally, without miniatures or visual representations, and say it simply "can't be done", remember?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 07:09:49 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573209
Outrageous means being different.
Actually, outrageous would be more like claiming rules issues from one game system are exactly the same problem in other game systems despite admitting no familiarity with said other game systems.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 07:10:03 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573207

 According to 3.5e part of that responsibility is clearly defined as deciding what PrCs fit his campaign, the exact page and quote is here somewhere.  Players should come to the table expecting the DM to have the right to judge what PrCs are allowed, as the rules clearly define that responsibility as the DMs.

The only reason you wouldn't accept what the rules actually state as standard operating procedure is if you are starting from the opinion that the DM is your natural enemy, out to get you, prevent your fun, whatever.  Hence...No rules can save you from a Bad GM.  There's that whole social contract/trust thing.


The DM can ban stuff, he can ban PrCs, he can even ban entire base classes. However the burden of proof is on the DM to make the case that allowing whatever he wants to ban will negatively affect him or the other players.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 07:11:04 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573126
I missed a few hundred Diplomacy posts, but...

Any DM who allows "Diplomancy" is an ignorant jackass.

A DM who realizes his error is a recovering jackass.  If he says "Damn, I really fucked the pooch on that one, Diplomacy Skill can't work like that, so you can reallocate points since we're going to be playing differently from here on out." he's doing his best to be fair in the face of recovering his sanity.

If he selectively defeats Diplomancy by making the DCs artifically high when he feels like it, and doesn't let you alter the points of a skill the rules of which he's changed, then he's a useless cock-knocker.  Rules can never prevent bad GMing or to put it another way "You can't fix Stupid."

If he does the recovering jackass thing - "announce rules change, make it stick from them forward and let the players adjust accordingly" and you whine about it, call him a shit-gm/cockblocker/DM-tyrant whatever phrases bounce around the echo-chamber these days, then you're the useless cock-knocker.

Pretty simple.


Do you remove Charisma from pc's as well? Just curious
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 18, 2012, 07:13:09 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573197
Both sides are going to have to step back and knowing the cause of the conflict, come to an agreement. Something impossible to do with people who don't even play in your game but are posting online.


There isn't any such conflict in games I run. The handout all potential players get clearly informs them upfront as to how my campaigns run:

* I run "old school" style sandbox campaigns. I have no story to railroad or the like. You encounter what is placed on the map (often placed there 20-30 years ago), do not assume that any encounter will be "level appropriate" if you want your characters to have a chance to survive. Do not assume that any "monster" you encounter must be fought, let alone fought to the death.

* Rule 0 strongly applies. All published rules are merely guidelines for the GM, if they conflict with what the GM rules, what the GM rules has absolute priority. If you want to play "rules as written" you need to find another campaign.

* GM rulings are based on the specific situation which probably has variables you do not immediately see which means the modifier for jumping one approximately 7 foot crevice may not be exactly the same as for another approximately 7 foot crevice.

* Rules lawyers, min-maxers, munchkins and other player types incompatible with our style of play are not welcome or tolerated.  If you aren't sure about our style of play, feel free to watch a session or two before deciding to join.

* We aren't into detailed tactical combat. We do not use minis or grids. An average combat only takes 5 to 15 minutes to play out.

* Your characters are not automatically important in the campaign world. You can make them important figures by your actions in the campaign. However, there will likely always be NPCs, monsters, and political authorities more powerful than you are. If you steal from them, treat them like dirt, etc. even the most friendly will eventually retaliate to the best of their ability. You reap what you sow.

* Like most old school games, player skill is more important than character skill. If the game system in use has character skills, remember that even with a very high bonus, skills are not supernatural powers. Also, you will be expected to state what your character is actually offering/doing/etc. and what you say will normally provide a large modifier to the skill roll. Not stating anything (just rolling) auto fails.

Etc.

Players who don't like how I run things do not have to play in my campaigns.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 07:13:45 PM
Quote from: Benoist;573210
Not necessarily.

You are totally OCD assburger though, I'll give you that. You're the guy who can't fathom playing the game verbally, without miniatures or visual representations, and say it simply "can't be done", remember?


Maybe he can explain to me sometime how I have done that for over 25 years. A great mystery :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 07:16:16 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573213
The DM can ban stuff, he can ban PrCs, he can even ban entire base classes. However the burden of proof is on the DM to make the case that allowing whatever he wants to ban will negatively affect him or the other players.


While I agree, at some point, the players need to relax and allow the dm to do his job. I have founf that on the few times I banned anything, the players were able to understand why, and it was not a problem.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 07:16:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573213
The DM can ban stuff, he can ban PrCs, he can even ban entire base classes. However the burden of proof is on the DM to make the case that allowing whatever he wants to ban will negatively affect him or the other players.


Actually no.  That's nowhere in the text.  Negative affect is a non-issue. All that is needed is that the DM states that the PrC does not fit the campaign, or that it needs to be reworked, or the (as stated in the text) ideal method, would be for the DM to create all his own PrCs based on real organizations in his setting, thus allowing no published PrCs and simply have his own.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 07:17:29 PM
Quote from: RandallS;573215


* GM rulings are based on the specific situation which probably has variables you do not immediately see which means the modifier for jumping one approximately 7 foot crevice may not be exactly the same as for another approximately 7 foot crevice.


You MTP jumping. Bitch are you for real
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 07:19:37 PM
Quote from: Bill;573216
Maybe he can explain to me sometime how I have done that for over 25 years. A great mystery :)
The answer will include the phrases "Mother-May-I" and possibly "Magical Tea Party".

Personally, though, playing without a map or minis drives me nuts.  IME, it always caused more problems through differences of perception then it ever helped through that difference of perception.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 07:24:15 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573221
You MTP jumping. Bitch are you for real

Let's say there are a few cracks on the floor, pillars you're jumping across, whatever.  One of them is different, loose stones, specifically loosened as a trap, etc.

Thus, jumping most of them might be DC10, but the loose one is DC12.  If you had declared something that allowed some form of perception check, you might have seen that before you leaped and thus been able to deduce it would be harder.  There's always going to be hidden modifiers somewhere, you really need anyone to explain that to you?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 18, 2012, 07:26:06 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573221
You MTP jumping. Bitch are you for real

See, the point here is that you wouldn't enjoy one of Randall's games.  So he would give you this sheet, and you would walk away.  

But really, it would take a special kind of asshat to look up at a GM and say "You MTP jumping in your game?  You suck."  And you know what?  None of his players would get up and leave with you.  Because they probably enjoy his game.  

Now, accept the difference in play style and stop being a silly little cunt.  He was giving an example of his methods.  Go back and read your 'sempai's last two pages worth of posts and realize that you're being a fucktard by attacking him for it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 07:27:14 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573219
Actually no.  That's nowhere in the text.  Negative affect is a non-issue. All that is needed is that the DM states that the PrC does not fit the campaign, or that it needs to be reworked, or the (as stated in the text) ideal method, would be for the DM to create all his own PrCs based on real organizations in his setting, thus allowing no published PrCs and simply have his own.


This is a part of the social contract. If a player can not take his prestige class than the game is less fun for him, so leting him take the prestige class has to cause some tangible loss of fun for you or other players.

Maybe you sould give me your guidelines for aproving prestige classes.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;573225
See, the point here is that you wouldn't enjoy one of Randall's games.  So he would give you this sheet, and you would walk away.  

But really, it would take a special kind of asshat to look up at a GM and say "You MTP jumping in your game?  You suck."  And you know what?  None of his players would get up and leave with you.  Because they probably enjoy his game.  

Now, accept the difference in play style and stop being a silly little cunt.  He was giving an example of his methods.  Go back and read your 'sempai's last two pages worth of posts and realize that you're being a fucktard by attacking him for it.


Sorry, I wasn't being insulting just expressing my incredulity

Quote from: CRKrueger;573224
Let's say there are a few cracks on the floor, pillars you're jumping across, whatever.  One of them is different, loose stones, specifically loosened as a trap, etc.

Thus, jumping most of them might be DC10, but the loose one is DC12.  If you had declared something that allowed some form of perception check, you might have seen that before you leaped and thus been able to deduce it would be harder.  There's always going to be hidden modifiers somewhere, you really need anyone to explain that to you?


This doesn’t sound like magic tea party, I have never objected to small fiat variances. I would like to know as a general case how jumping works in your game if I expect to do it alot.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 07:29:43 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573223
The answer will include the phrases "Mother-May-I" and possibly "Magical Tea Party".

Personally, though, playing without a map or minis drives me nuts.  IME, it always caused more problems through differences of perception then it ever helped through that difference of perception.


I play with or without map and minis, depending on player preference. What are the problems you have when you do not use a map?

I find the game to be much better without the map and minis.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 07:30:45 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573208
Do you read what other people say? At all?

I ask because you suddenly started talking about GMless games as if anyone else at any point was talking about that at all.


I do...Do you?

Quote from: MGuy;573035
I guess having more choices isn't up some people's alley and player empowerment scares the iron fisted GM dictator.

Mist, Storm doesn't believe that rulesshould ever be followed in a game. He doesn't believe in "balance" at all so instead he just changes the rules on the fly to make his games work at all. He's like Sacro, Marley, and Benoist. He's not interested in an actual conversation nor does he know how to make rules or how to tell whether a given rule is functional. He's like Marleycat but instead of knowing that he doesn't know what he's talking about and just e-fellating other posters he pretends he does.


...Big Bad GMs going around making arbitrary rulings without the players, how dare they!

The implication here is, that the game doesn't need GMs at all. It's been my experience to witness a few GMless games over the last thirty-five years, none of which ended in a satisfactory manner for all the players because no rules as written exist that can cover every situation.

I heard Amber was pretty good for GMless games, but I never saw or participated in an Amber game.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 18, 2012, 07:31:36 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573223
The answer will include the phrases "Mother-May-I" and possibly "Magical Tea Party".

Personally, though, playing without a map or minis drives me nuts.  IME, it always caused more problems through differences of perception then it ever helped through that difference of perception.


Depends heavily on the people involved. Now I  play with and without miniatures, with or without visual aids, dwarven forge in dnd, theater of the mind in vampire, whatever. The reason gleichman's take on this is ridiculously stubborn is that he keeps saying you can't do theater of the mind meaningfully, ever, and if you say you can, you're a liar. He can play chess seventeen million moves in advance without looking at the board and kill you with his brain, but that's advanced shit for real men right there, not the lot of plebes like you and I.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: Benoist;573232
Depends heavily on the people involved. Now I  play with and without miniatures, with or without visual aids, dwarven forge in dnd, theater of the mind in vampire, whatever. The reason gleichman's take on this is ridiculously stubborn is that he keeps saying you can't do theater of the mind meaningfully, ever, and if you say you can, you're a liar. He can play chess seventeen million moves in advance without looking at the board and kill you with his brain, but that's advanced shit for real men right there, not the lot of plebes like you and I.


I have a friend who can actually play chess without a board; that's pretty amazing compared to my feeble chess playing skills and iffy memory.

But I am still able to play dnd without map or minis just fine.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 07:36:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573227
This is a part of the social contract. If a player can not take his prestige class than the game is less fun for him, so leting him take the prestige class has to cause some tangible loss of fun for you or other players.

Maybe you sould give me your guidelines for aproving prestige classes.


That would be a given. For example I may be running a low magic game so one prestige class excluded would be Archmage because it goes against the tone I am trying to establish not anything to do with is it broken or not.
Quote
I have a friend who can actually play chess without a board; that's pretty amazing compared to my feeble chess playing skills and iffy memory.
Is she using a computer? (I kid , I kid!).;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 18, 2012, 07:37:26 PM
Quote from: GameDaddy;573231
...Big Bad GMs going around making arbitrary rulings without the players, how dare they!


No, the implication is what he said, which is that Storm is dumbass and a bad DM. No part of that is advocating for the removal of DMs.

Seriously, maybe just try honestly understanding what other people are saying instead of reaching for the most absurd thing you think you could possibly torture it into meaning?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 07:38:03 PM
Quote from: Bill;573230
I play with or without map and minis, depending on player preference. What are the problems you have when you do not use a map?

I find the game to be much better without the map and minis.


Distance and positioning are the big two.  I prefer systems where I can have two sword & boarders block a passageway, set ambushes that are hard to respond to quickly, not have to worry about remembering where Bob said his thief was before he went to the bathroom, etc.

Without any shared reference we all have a different movie playing in our heads, which can end up with things like a player declare they are always where the treasure is found, and never where the trap is.  It just keeps everyone honest and works for the way my brain processes info.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 18, 2012, 07:39:06 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573213
The DM can ban stuff, he can ban PrCs, he can even ban entire base classes. However the burden of proof is on the DM to make the case that allowing whatever he wants to ban will negatively affect him or the other players.

Haha no.

My table isn't a courtroom.

If I say, "we're not using PrC X" and you start whining and bitching and demanding my "guidelines" and acting like a child...

You're an asshole.

I'm a kindergarten teacher and I don't tolerate adults acting like my students.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 07:39:29 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573213
The DM can ban stuff, he can ban PrCs, he can even ban entire base classes. However the burden of proof is on the DM to make the case that allowing whatever he wants to ban will negatively affect him or the other players.


For me all he has to do is say they either don't fit the setting, he dislikes them or has balance concerns. He is the one running the game so i am fine with the GM getting to decide that kind of stuff. That doesn't ruin my fun. What does dampen my enjoyment is a player endlessly arguing with the GM over such a decision.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 07:43:10 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573236
Distance and positioning are the big two.  I prefer systems where I can have two sword & boarders block a passageway, set ambushes that are hard to respond to quickly, not have to worry about remembering where Bob said his thief was before he went to the bathroom, etc.

Without any shared reference we all have a different movie playing in our heads, which can end up with things like a player declare they are always where the treasure is found, and never where the trap is.  It just keeps everyone honest and works for the way my brain processes info.


I fully understand that maps work better for some people.

What makes a mapless combat work is the dm describing positions when needed to communicate that to the players.

Maps actually train a player to not think about positions.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 07:46:38 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573238
For me all he has to do is say they either don't fit the setting, he dislikes them or has balance concerns. He is the one running the game so i am fine with the GM getting to decide that kind of stuff. That doesn't ruin my fun. What does dampen my enjoyment is a player endlessly arguing with the GM over such a decision.



Argumentive people usually have control issues, or over inflated egos.
I believe that people with control issues should probably not dm or play rpg's




I personally don't have control issues, but may have a touch of over inflated ego, but I try to control it. At least I admit I have a problem.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 18, 2012, 07:47:29 PM
The 'eight million' dc is obviously a dick move. Storm isn't saying it isn't either, iirc. He's reacting to a shit player in his mind, so it's responding in kind for him. It's not something i'd do personally, since I basically agree it's a matter of setting expectations straight before the game even begins, but I certainly can understand where he's coming from.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 07:48:06 PM
Quote from: Kaelik;573235
Seriously, maybe just try honestly understanding...


As if I somehow didn't before I chose to comment... I doubt the snake oil you're trying to sell will benefit any of the widows and orphans in this here town, so pack up your wagon and keep on moving huckster.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 07:51:13 PM
Quote from: Bill;573242
I personally don't have control issues, but may have a touch of over inflated ego, but I try to control it. At least I admit I have a problem.


Hrrrmm? No. You need an Ego to make new games. If it wasn't for a few folks with some Ego (Thank You, Gary, Dave, Bob, Bill... etc. et. al.)and a bit of Chutzpah, we'd all still be sitting around playing Monopoly and Sorry!... and wait for it... Life!. Oooh. almost forgot, Stratego.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 18, 2012, 07:51:52 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;573234
.Is she using a computer? (I kid , I kid!).;)


The full story is this:

My male friend is a legitimate super genius, and a superior chess player.
He ran into a female chess player that could beat him, and he was only able to ever beat her at chess when they played without a board.


So he used his one advantage, memory, to win.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 07:55:42 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573227
This is a part of the social contract. If a player can not take his prestige class than the game is less fun for him, so leting him take the prestige class has to cause some tangible loss of fun for you or other players.
I can see that, but, we're not just there to have fun, we're choosing specifically to have fun by playing a roleplaying game, with a person as the DM who has created or modified a setting for our characters to live in.  That setting has a reality.  When I play, I accept that my character concept has to merge with that reality.  I see that as part of the Social Contract too.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573227
Maybe you sould give me your guidelines for aproving prestige classes.
Not currently running a 3e derivative, but lets look at the ShadowDancer.  Now, in the D&D world I was running, there was certainly a Plane of Shadow, and the class itself is not impossible, but there would be a process by which a Thief/Assassin attained that class, which would involve roleplaying, time and effort on the part of the character, which would be necessary for all specialized training, not just that one PrC.

More problematic are some of the "Environment Books" like Frostfell, which are more then just rules supplements for adventuring in the cold, but include Races and Classes which assume that there is some weird magical "Coldness" thing going on.  I might very well chop that whole book aside from pure system rules. (Frostfell is just an example, been years since I've read it.)

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573227
This dosen't sound like magic tea party, I have never objected to small fiat variances. I would like to know as a general case how jumping works in your game if I expect to do it alot.
Of course.  I think generally, most of us would enjoy gaming with each other if we just sat down and played, even if our playstyles are different enough that we might prefer something else on a regular basis.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 07:56:24 PM
Quote from: Bill;573246
The full story is this:

My male friend is a legitimate super genius, and a superior chess player.
He ran into a female chess player that could beat him, and he was only able to ever beat her at chess when they played without a board.


So he used his one advantage, memory, to win.


That is awesome to actually do that. I am sure if you were blind it wouldn't be that hard to do also and without being a certified genius. Your friend should have asked her out.:)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
I would like to note that the prestige classes are optional thing was droped as 3e went on. My experience with DMs who are down on PrCs and splats has been

A)They are naively trying to balance the game

or

B)They have control issues

A can be cured but B just can only be dealt with one way. Rule 0 is a thing but remember Rule -1 without a player their is no game
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 07:58:26 PM
Quote from: Bill;573240
Maps actually train a player to not think about positions.
Hmm, better to say I think that maps might train a player to not keep position information in memory.  I'm still thinking about positioning and using it to full effect.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 18, 2012, 07:59:22 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573251
I would like to note that the prestige classes are optional thing was droped as 3e went on. My experience with DMs who are down on PrCs and splats has been

A)They are naively trying to balance the game

or

B)They have control issues

A can be cured but B just can only be dealt with one way. Rule 0 is a thing but remember Rule -1 without a player their is no game


Just be up front about things and you will ALWAYS have players. It's when you switch stuff midstream or favor certain players or some other obvious dick move that causes the problems.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 18, 2012, 08:04:05 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573251
I would like to note that the prestige classes are optional thing was dropped as 3e went on. My experience with DMs who are down on PrCs and splats has been

A)They are naively trying to balance the game

or

B)They have control issues

A can be cured but B just can only be dealt with one way. Rule 0 is a thing but remember Rule -1 without a player their is no game


I have always allowed PrCs or characters from splat books in my home games. Most of the time, I''ll even let you bring your pre-played pre-made characters to the game. I have however, limited characters in Convention games, because of the wide variety of players experience levels that show up to play. Having a bit of a tightened focus there, allows us to actually play a game (and most often complete it) in the time-slot alloted for that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 18, 2012, 08:05:23 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573251
A)They are naively trying to balance the game
I don't care for game balance as much as setting integrity, so no problem there.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573251
B)They have control issues
The same could be said for players who demand a certain PrC even if it makes no sense in the DM's campaign.  There are without a doubt asshole DMs out there (the Forge is proof of it :p), but unless we're playing a StoryGame, the setting is clearly the DM's to control, the players to influence.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573251
Rule 0 is a thing but remember Rule -1 without a player their is no game
Actually Rule -1 would be that without a DM there is no game to play in, and without players there is no one to play the game.  Rule -2 however is that "No Gaming is Better Than Bad Gaming".  You don't like the GM, walk away.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Ladybird on August 18, 2012, 08:12:31 PM
Quote from: Piestrio;573237
Haha no.

My table isn't a courtroom.

If I say, "we're not using PrC X" and you start whining and bitching and demanding my "guidelines" and acting like a child...

You're an asshole.

I'm a kindergarten teacher and I don't tolerate adults acting like my students.


If the game has limited resources, strong focus on "building towards" certain classes, and no respec mechanism, you need to be clear from the start what's going to be allowed.

I mean, sure, if a player comes to the GM and says "I am taking class X or I walk", fine, fuck 'em. But if they announce in plenty of time what they want, and build and play towards that for a few levels (Including making choices that only make sense in the context of the desired class), and the GM doesn't say "no, you can't have that, here are some reasons", or "it will work in a completely different way to what you expected" until they actually take it, fuck you because that's shitty GMing. As a group, everyone should all be speaking to each other about how they expect the game and characters to develop.

My suggestion would be to just not play D&D3, and avoid this entire mess. Go fully class-based, go fully skill-based, but don't got for something sat awkwardly on the fence.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Imp on August 18, 2012, 08:23:49 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;573253
Just be up front about things and you will ALWAYS have players. It's when you switch stuff midstream or favor certain players or some other obvious dick move that causes the problems.


Seriously. Have a sheet, delineate what classes are freely allowed, what classes have campaign restrictions, what classes are not present in the campaign. Hand it out to new players. There you go.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 08:24:06 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573255
The same could be said for players who demand a certain PrC even if it makes no sense in the DM's campaign.  There are without a doubt asshole DMs out there (the Forge is proof of it :p), but unless we're playing a StoryGame, the setting is clearly the DM's to control, the players to influence.


PrCs in 3rd tend to be very fluff neutral most of the time. If you don't have a problem with the eldritch knight I doubt you should have a problem with 80% of all PrCs. In genral it's rare to see 3e fluff complaints about PrCs usually it's the "extra casters"/weird subsystems like the XPH, Tome of Magic, or Magic of Incarnium.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 18, 2012, 08:54:02 PM
Quote from: MGuy;573035
So your big issue with 3/4e is that players have more options for their characters? Can a wizard in 2e not plan on trying to get certain spells as he levels? Can a fighter not plan to specialize in a certain fighting style? Weren't there supplement books for 2e that gave you more options? Whatever. I guess having more choices isn't up some people's alley and player empowerment scares the iron fisted GM dictator.
No, the wizard cannot plan for trying to get this or that spell because those spells have to be found first and that is wholly random.  You can't plan for that.  No, the fighter cannot plan to specialize in a fighting style because he has to either find the manuals (random treasure) or a trainer (NPC that must be first discovered and then preserved until convinced to train your guy), so you can't plan for that either.  Supplements are at the Dungeon Master's discretion, so you can't plan around those.  You have to make the best with what you get at any given time.  The campaign is the wholly-owned property of the Dungeon Master. You, as a player, are a guest in his home and thus are subject to his rules- and his alone.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 18, 2012, 09:55:45 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573221
You MTP jumping. Bitch are you for real


Yep, I'm just horrible. Considering I have no lack of players and have never had a lack of players, obviously not everyone shares you views. My info sheet helps reduce the chance that someone who does share you views will find themselves playing in my game. That's good for them and good for my game.

However, it's not really a MTP as there are reasons for the differences if the characters stop and look (and ask).  For example, there's a chasm in one of my dungeons where the wind is either blowing up or down at a very good clip. There used to be a bridge joining two passages in that chasm. The bridge is gone but the gap can be jumped.

The difficulty varies however based on whether the wind is blowing up (easier) or down (harder) or isn't blowing at all. If the humidity is high, the rock will be slick, making it harder. Jumping one direction is harder than jumping the other direction because the passage on one side is abut 18 inches higher than the other. Jumping to the higher side from the lower side is harder than jumping to the lower side from the higher side. Sometimes when the wind is blowing there's a lot of rock dust in the air, this does not really affect one's chance of jumping, but can make it harder to see what one is up against if one is encountering this area for the first time. Then there are factors that vary with the characters (their wound levels and fatigue levels), how much they are carrying, etc.

RAW groups would have to look all this up, ignoring any factors that the game designers did not think of. I just make a judgement call based on the current situation. If the players don't like it, I explain the issues they can see.  They can then change their plan if they wish, perhaps in ways that will adjust the modifier -- or they can just choose not to cross and go elsewhere.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 18, 2012, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;573282
No, the wizard cannot plan for trying to get this or that spell because those spells have to be found first and that is wholly random.


Why is it wholly random?  Is the wizard not allowed to ask about other wizards when he arrives in a new town?  Could he not write letters to a wizard college seeking help locating another wizard that has the spell he wants?  Can he not task messengers to go to the most powerful wizards to confirm if they have the spell and if he can do anything on their behalf to earn it?  

These are the kinds of things that players can do to accomplish the goals they have for themselves.  Sure, sometimes that doesn't fit into a 'plot' that the DM has, but it sounds like most of the DMs here consider themselves 'sandbox style' - so if it exists in the game world, clever players can find it.  


Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;573282
No, the fighter cannot plan to specialize in a fighting style because he has to either find the manuals (random treasure) or a trainer (NPC that must be first discovered and then preserved until convinced to train your guy), so you can't plan for that either.


A fighter can't seek out a mentor with a reputation he respects?  If he doesn't find a manual that he wants, he can't travel to the worlds most extensive libraries and archives in pursuit of the manual?  

Players that feel comfortable in the world can do a lot of things that accomplish their character goals.  The DM COULD stop them, but it's pretty hard to justify not making something a player wants available to them by any means unless its simply not IN the game world.  But most worlds are pretty 'extensive', so not having room for a particular thing seems to happen exceedingly rarely.  

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;573282

  Supplements are at the Dungeon Master's discretion, so you can't plan around those.


If supplements are not disclosed prior to play, than planning around them would be hard.  But if the supplements that are available are changing on an at-whim basis by the DM, he's being a dick.  It's not hard to be consistent.  It's not hard to allow players to play the character they want to play.  

And just an aside - it strikes me as a little funny that some of the people that are saying 'the DM shouldn't allow anything into his game that upsets the balance' are the same people that have said 'game balance isn't important'.  But in any case, moving on...

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;573282

  You have to make the best with what you get at any given time.  The campaign is the wholly-owned property of the Dungeon Master. You, as a player, are a guest in his home and thus are subject to his rules- and his alone.


The game is a social interaction between the player and the GM.  Both make contributions.  In general, the GM has the heavier burden, and in deference to the amount of work he puts in to provide a fun experience for everyone else, he should have the final say.  But the GM should have a GOOD REASON for saying no to what the players want.  There are lots of bad reasons, and you can probably have a good game even with a mediocre DM.  But if you have a great DM, well, you're likely to have a great game.  Great GMs work hard to accommodate what players are looking for in the game.  

If you think you're a great GM but you don't accommodate your players, you're wrong.  

But accommodation doesn't mean MTP or that the players have to fellate you to get what they want - it just means that you have to consider how things would be possible and let the PCs decide if they consider it worth the effort.  

So if specializing means finding an NPC who can teach you, and then convincing him to do so - those tasks shouldn't be impossible.  If the PCs decide that's what they want to do, they should be able to follow the 'normal rules' as much as possible and get a chance to succeed or fail based on how well they've prepared, what actions they've taken, and finally, whether the dice are with them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 18, 2012, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: RandallS;573298
The difficulty varies however based on whether the wind is blowing up (easier) or down (harder) or isn't blowing at all. If the humidity is high, the rock will be slick, making it harder. Jumping one direction is harder than jumping the other direction because the passage on one side is abut 18 inches higher than the other. Jumping to the higher side from the lower side is harder than jumping to the lower side from the higher side. Sometimes when the wind is blowing there's a lot of rock dust in the air, this does not really affect one's chance of jumping, but can make it harder to see what one is up against if one is encountering this area for the first time. Then there are factors that vary with the characters (their wound levels and fatigue levels), how much they are carrying, etc.

Their is a difrence between ignoring rules and adding more details if the rules don't cover everyting

My bad with that one I was out of line, in fairness to me some people in this thread would ask the player to describe his jump and then maybe set the DC to eight million if you're a dirty minmaxer, or he hates your shirt.

Have you considered running GRUPS by the way.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 18, 2012, 10:28:33 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573301
My bad with that one I was out of line, in fairness to me some people in this thread would ask the player to describe his jump and then maybe set the DC to eight million if you're a dirty minmaxer, or he hates your shirt.


I have been known to give ridiculous mods when a player insists on rolling for something I've already told him will not succeed.

Quote
Have you considered running GRUPS by the way.


I like rules lite and abstract combat. And I hate point build character creation (I'm just not into builds). I've ran GURPS 2e and 3e in the past (long past, actually), but find it far too fiddly any more.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 18, 2012, 10:54:00 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;573282
No, the wizard cannot plan for trying to get this or that spell because those spells have to be found first and that is wholly random.
So there's no spell research in your game. It's impractical or impossible to have a themed wizard in your game. Cool.  

Quote
No, the fighter cannot plan to specialize in a fighting style because he has to either find the manuals (random treasure) or a trainer (NPC that must be first discovered and then preserved until convinced to train your guy), so you can't plan for that either.

So there're no weapon specialist fighters in your game. It's impractical or impossible to have a themed fighter in your game. Cool.  

Quote
Supplements are at the Dungeon Master's discretion, so you can't plan around those. You have to make the best with what you get at any given time.
I believe splats in any edition have that kind of restriction.

Quote
The campaign is the wholly-owned property of the Dungeon Master. You, as a player, are a guest in his home and thus are subject to his rules- and his alone.

This is just going to be where we will always differ. Whether or not I GM or play I expect input on both sides of the table.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
Quote from: Bill;573216
Maybe he can explain to me sometime how I have done that for over 25 years. A great mystery :)


I couldn't tell anyone how to do something like that, because that's not what I said. That's more of Benoist's bullying.

This..

Quote from: CRKrueger;573223

Personally, though, playing without a map or minis drives me nuts.  IME, it always caused more problems through differences of perception then it ever helped through that difference of perception.


...is much closer to what I said. Except that I'm of the opinion that it will *always* cause reality disconnects between the players, GM, and the game system (if the game uses range and line of sight as important elements of the rules).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 18, 2012, 11:40:55 PM
Quote from: Bill;573240
Maps actually train a player to not think about positions.


Edit: opps, my first response was completely wrong, likely because I can't believe anyone would actually say something like that.

It's just flatly amazing. A bit like saying that body building makes people fat and weak. Or that higher math results in people not being able to do math.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 18, 2012, 11:52:38 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573326
Edit: opps, my first response was completely wrong, likely because I can't believe anyone would actually say something like that.

It's just flatly amazing. A bit like saying that body building makes people fat and weak. Or that higher math results in people not being able to do math.


I think what he is saying is if you are doing combats with no mat you are training yourself to think about where things are in your head (because you have to remember from round to round where you and the other characters/monsters are in relation to each other) but if you use the map its recorded so you don't have to remember positioning. So shifting from having a map, to not having one, will be confusing for lots of people because they are accustomed to positioning being recorded on the mat (not having to keeping track of positioning in their head).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 12:02:42 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573329
I think what he is saying is if you are doing combats with no mat you are training yourself to think about where things are in your head


What he's saying makes no sense at all.

People don't learn position skills by thinking about imaginary positions. All that does is reforce whatever nonsense they've dreamed up in their heads as there's no objective reality to compare it to.

Now if they visualize the map, while someone else actual tracks it on a real map (like some chess players do playing blindfold against a opponent with a board)- that's a different matter. But that's not the impression I'm getting here.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 19, 2012, 12:04:39 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573325
I couldn't tell anyone how to do something like that, because that's not what I said. That's more of Benoist's bullying.

This..



...is much closer to what I said. Except that I'm of the opinion that it will *always* cause reality disconnects between the players, GM, and the game system (if the game uses range and line of sight as important elements of the rules).

Oh OK.

So it's in fact more moderate than what I paraphrased, a bit like this more moderate position you quote there... except yours is not moderate at all, since in your mind it'll ALWAYS lead to problems. So you're more like a moderate ... except for the moderation part.

My mistake. I should totally have known.

Oh and the whole victim "I'm bullied boohoohoo" thing? LOL.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 12:05:01 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573329
I think what he is saying is if you are doing combats with no mat you are training yourself to think about where things are in your head (because you have to remember from round to round where you and the other characters/monsters are in relation to each other) but if you use the map its recorded so you don't have to remember positioning. So shifting from having a map, to not having one, will be confusing for lots of people because they are accustomed to positioning being recorded on the mat (not having to keeping track of positioning in their head).

I think the math analogy is a good one.

You can do math in your head or with various aids (paper, calculators, etc...).

Neither is "right" or "wrong" but both are suited to different things with quite a bit of overlap.

I don't want to imigine solving differential equations in my head but I also don't want to have to pull out a pad of paper everytime I want to add two numbers.

Gleichman is right (in his particularly rude way) that you can probably have a more "meaningful" tactical wank-fest with a grid. Just like most people can do higher level math with aids.

Where he's wrong is insisting that you need a grid for the way many people actually play.

He comes off as someone insisting that you "show your work" for tallying your grocery bill.

I don't want to do abstract algebra, I just want to add some sums. A calculator is overkill.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 19, 2012, 12:07:45 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573332
What he's saying makes no sense at all.

People don't learn position skills by thinking about imaginary positions. All that does is reforce whatever nonsense they've dreamed up in their heads as there's no objective reality to compare it to.

Now if they visualize the map, while someone else actual tracks it on a real map (like some chess players do playing blindfold against a opponent with a board)- that's a different matter. But that's not the impression I'm getting here.


Sure it does gleichman. It makes lots of sense. When you don't use the map you have to remember positioning from round to round, so you are picturing where the characters are. A grid is going to be more precise for obvious reasons, but it isn't going to demand you remember where you were last round and where your opponents and allies were.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 12:16:39 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573335
Sure it does gleichman. It makes lots of sense. When you don't use the map you have to remember positioning from round to round, so you are picturing where the characters are.


So in your view...

A chess player, using the board and pieces isn't imagining where pieces are going to be in future moves... Just like players of tactical RPGs are not imagining future positions either.

And even if he is, in your mind it's more important to remember past positions... as if a chess (or tactical rpg) player isn't keeping track of that as well in order to second guess future moves of his foe based upon past history...

Is that really your claim here? Because I happen to know that the reality for players such as myself is much different.


Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573335

 A grid is going to be more precise for obvious reasons,


That's really my only claim. Being more precise is highly important for players interested in tactical gaming. Being imprecise to any degree above the abstraction allowed by the rules is seen as breaking the rules (i.e. cheating).

Not everyone is enthralled with resource management. There are other styles of gaming that value precision of actiona and precision.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 19, 2012, 01:10:26 AM
Quote from: CRKrueger;573133
AI don't want my players acting like a "MMOGer on EQ Patch Day" running around consuming as much content as possible trying to take advantage of every undiscovered bug before it gets nerfed.


It bears pointing out that the type of player likely to do this will almost ALWAYS bitch to high heaven when you do 'nerf' it.  After all, you're not the game designer, so you don't have any authority to correct mistakes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 19, 2012, 01:16:34 AM
Quote from: Kaelik;573182

No definition of trolling includes "people talking about the things they want to talk about."


When 'what you want to talk about' includes denying that an observable behavior exists, complete with accusations that it has always existed throughout all forms of D&D, it kind of does.

Intellectual honesty needs to count for something.

Now, you can say "I don't do that" and you'd get little disagreement from me.  But so say "that never happens" tips your hand into trolling town.

Clearer?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 19, 2012, 01:22:39 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573227
This is a part of the social contract. If a player can not take his prestige class than the game is less fun for him, so leting him take the prestige class has to cause some tangible loss of fun for you or other players.


Why do the 'fairness' people always seem to forget that anyone can run a game?

If you want to control the game, put in the effort of organizing and running one.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 19, 2012, 01:27:56 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573332
What he's saying makes no sense at all.

People don't learn position skills by thinking about imaginary positions. All that does is reforce whatever nonsense they've dreamed up in their heads as there's no objective reality to compare it to.

Now if they visualize the map, while someone else actual tracks it on a real map (like some chess players do playing blindfold against a opponent with a board)- that's a different matter. But that's not the impression I'm getting here.


You're essentially arguing that the tool makes learning better.  Sort of like how using a calculator all the time makes you better at math?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 01:38:54 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;573356
You're essentially arguing that the tool makes learning better.  Sort of like how using a calculator all the time makes you better at math?


No. Using the tool makes you better at using the tool and that makes you at achieving the goal.

Using a hammer to build a house is far more productive in getting a house built than imagining that you using a hammer to build a house. Or using math to solve problems is better than imagining you're using math to solve a problem.

The key difference is that your success in one is a measured reality- a new house, or a solved math problem. Other people can objectively double check you work and agree that the house is built or the math problem solved.

The imaginary methods ends up with exactly what you put into it- unrealized pipe dreams that no one can objectively verify.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 01:48:57 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573359


The imaginary methods ends up with exactly what you put into it- unrealized pipe dreams that no one can objectively verify.


And why should I care if anyone can "objectively measure" the fun I have at the table?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 19, 2012, 01:50:45 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573361
And why should I care if anyone can "objectively measure" the fun I have at the table?


What are the units of measurement for fun?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Black Vulmea on August 19, 2012, 01:53:48 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;573363
What are the units of measurement for fun?

The buttload.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 01:54:36 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573361
And why should I care if anyone can "objectively measure" the fun I have at the table?


That's not what's being measured, rather it's your adherence to the rules of the game.

But for what it's worth, I'm certain that people who win by breaking those rules reach high fun levels when they get away with it. At least in the short term.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: CerilianSeeming on August 19, 2012, 01:55:15 AM
Quote from: jeff37923;573363
What are the units of measurement for fun?


Rainbow quotients.

Why do these types of people use the word 'objectively' as often as a normal person uses the word 'the'?  I mean seriously...it's like their mating call.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 01:56:21 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573365
That's not what's being measured, rather it's your adherence to the rules of the game.

But for what it's worth, I'm certain that people who win by breaking those rules reach high fun levels when they get away it. At least in the short term.


And why should I care about my "adherence to the rules"?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 19, 2012, 01:57:15 AM
Quote from: MGuy;573075
As I've outlined obviously player empowerment (where there are definite things a player can definitely do in game, without explicit GM permission in order to have a solid effect on the plot) is something that came online most notably in 3rd.


A solid effect on on what plot exactly? The plot of some entity in the gameworld? No problem. The evil cultists plot to kill a kidnapped victim and the PCs show up and kick their ass before the deed can be done. The players don't have to ask if it would be ok to kill the cultists before they do it. Thats silly.


Quote from: deadDMwalking;573082
Mguy makes a very important point, so I'll repeat for emphasis.

Telling someone that things work different BEFORE they invest character resources is fair.  Telling them AFTER is being a dick.  

My favorite character from the A-Team is Face.  If I try to make a smooth-talking con man, I'm likely to put skill ranks and/or feats into bluff and diplomacy.  If I find out that no matter how many resources I put in, I can only succeed if I say the magic word (ie, you get the boat if you tell the King that you'll bring back the white whale) but can get it in no other way, then I don't need to put ranks or feats into those skills...  I can have a +0 modifier, but figure out the magic word and STILL accomplish what I wanted to.  

So, I'm better off putting those skills and feats somewhere else.  

But if I don't find out until after I've spent all the skills, I may find I can't do the one thing I thought I'd be good at doing.  And if I can't do the one thing I thought I could do well, I'm a burden for the party.  I'd be better off playing a different character that actually has something to contribute.  

I don't think that's being a power-gaming munchkin.  That's just being polite.


Certainly. Details about what is available and thus possible should be decided before play begins. Don't include social skills if they will not be used.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;573282
 The campaign is the wholly-owned property of the Dungeon Master. You, as a player, are a guest in his home and thus are subject to his rules- and his alone.


There is no campaign without a DM AND players willing to play. A DM only owned campaign is a lonely one suitable only for theorywanking without players to share it with.

The thing to do is simply match expectations between DM and player before play begins. Rules used and material included should be agreeable to all participants. DMs and players who try and make drastic changes to these agreements may well find themselves without a game.  

Quote from: mcbobbo;573354
Why do the 'fairness' people always seem to forget that anyone can run a game?

If you want to control the game, put in the effort of organizing and running one.


The most vocal empowerment/entitlement people are usually the last to want to run games. They want to be the ones making demands after all, not having to accomodate them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 02:02:08 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573367
And why should I care about my "adherence to the rules"?


If you don't care you don't care. You are free to say and act that way. But don't be insulted when others judge you on that stance.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 02:05:09 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573371
If you don't care you don't care. You are free to say and act that way. But don't be insulted when others judge you on that stance.


And why do you feel the need to "judge" me?

Sorry for all the questions I'm just seriously confused about the point of all this.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 02:06:39 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;573369
The most vocal empowerment/entitlement people are usually the last to want to run games. They want to be the ones making demands after all, not having to accomodate them.


Interestingly enough, I'm in favor of player empowerment (as I previously defined it). And I design games, and GM games quite often indeed.

As GM, I get tend to get irked when players attempt to shift their power (aka responsibility) to me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 19, 2012, 02:11:46 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573299
Why is it wholly random?  Is the wizard not allowed to ask about other wizards when he arrives in a new town?  Could he not write letters to a wizard college seeking help locating another wizard that has the spell he wants?  Can he not task messengers to go to the most powerful wizards to confirm if they have the spell and if he can do anything on their behalf to earn it?

Spells are treasure. Treasure must be discovered, then recovered, before you get the benefit of possession.  That is fundamental to understanding much of pre-3e D&D- and not just for spells.  If a NPC magic-user is found, and if the PC establishes and maintains an amicable relationship with that magic-user, then the NPC may short-cut the process of finding viable leads to treasures such as magic spells.  This is because spells are power, and power is not to be shared lightly, so any NPC magic-user is going to want guarantees (of a sort not readily discerned) that it is worthwhile to share such secrets- especially in pre-3e D&D where there are hard limits to what can be known.  As none of this can occur away from the table, it can't be planned for and thus.
Quote
These are the kinds of things that players can do to accomplish the goals they have for themselves.  Sure, sometimes that doesn't fit into a 'plot' that the DM has, but it sounds like most of the DMs here consider themselves 'sandbox style' - so if it exists in the game world, clever players can find it.

These are also things that routinely require dealing with NPCs, NPCs that are not automatically aligned with the PCs or share their interests.  PCs must do what is necessary to not close off those relations, and satisfy the NPCs as is necessary, before they can procure whatever information is requested- and that assumes that the NPCs are going to be honest with them.  Lots of "if" qualifiers here, which is part of the process, and thus matters confined to the table and not open otherwise to settlement.
Quote
A fighter can't seek out a mentor with a reputation he respects?  If he doesn't find a manual that he wants, he can't travel to the worlds most extensive libraries and archives in pursuit of the manual?

Not if he does not know that one exists, and it is not assumed to be there.  If one exists, then he can--if he has the opportunity--pursue it.  He has to spend time at the table, during play, seeing if any such thing or person does exist.  Then he has to either recover the thing (as they too are treasure), or deal with the NPC just as magic-users must for getting spells.  This too is power, and gets dealt with accordingly.
Quote
Players that feel comfortable in the world can do a lot of things that accomplish their character goals.  The DM COULD stop them, but it's pretty hard to justify not making something a player wants available to them by any means unless its simply not IN the game world.  But most worlds are pretty 'extensive', so not having room for a particular thing seems to happen exceedingly rarely.
 
The player cannot assume that such things exist.  If the Dungeon Master does not inform the player of his own accord, one way or the other, then the question is open and must be resolved in actual play during time at the table and thus risk being lied to deliberately, following obsolete information, dealing with rival interests, or other risks that people must contend with in seeking out obscure or lost things--which are treasure--and thus must accept that he may fail to find what he seeks or get what he wants.
Quote
If supplements are not disclosed prior to play, than planning around them would be hard.  But if the supplements that are available are changing on an at-whim basis by the DM, he's being a dick.  It's not hard to be consistent.  It's not hard to allow players to play the character they want to play.

"Hard" or "easy" is irrelevant. The campaign is the Dungeon Master's property; players are guests.  If the owner wants or doesn't want a thing, then he has that right as the owner to say so, and he has no obligation to explain himself.  "These are the rules." is enough.  Vote with your feet if you don't like it.
Quote
And just an aside - it strikes me as a little funny that some of the people that are saying 'the DM shouldn't allow anything into his game that upsets the balance' are the same people that have said 'game balance isn't important'.  But in any case, moving on...

I don't give a fuck.  The rules are my bitch, and I use them to make the things that I want to run.  I will brook no gainsaying; I made it, so I alone own it.  No one else's opinion matters- not even God.  Players are guests in my milieu, welcome to explore it and engage with it, but always on my terms; be a good guest, and everyone benefits from the experience- bad guests get the boot.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 02:12:57 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573372
And why do you feel the need to "judge" me?


In the specific case of this forum, it determines how I view your thoughts and ideas presented here. Someone that freely breaks the rules holds a different value in my eyes than someone who follows them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 02:17:19 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573376
In the specific case of this forum, it determines how I view your thoughts and ideas presented here. Someone that freely breaks the rules holds a different value in my eyes than someone who follows them.


That's an odd mindset to have.

But I never understood fetishism.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 02:21:08 AM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;573375
No one else's opinion matters- not even God.


"Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.", Proverbs 8:13

I'm sure that means nothing to you. But rest assured that your display means something to others. I will say no more on this matter.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 02:23:28 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573377
That's an odd mindset to have.


I little doubt that judging people by their words and deeds has little meaning for you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 02:26:34 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573380
I little doubt that judging people by their words and deeds has little meaning for you.


You know maybe you should read that verse you posted.

What makes you so unpopular around here is your own overbearing arrogance.

You live in a world where we're all playing with our toes and eating crayons while you're curing cancer with your elf games.

It's obnoxious. And if you have a biblicial bent, sinful.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bradford C. Walker on August 19, 2012, 02:27:03 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573379
"Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.", Proverbs 8:13

I'm sure that means nothing to you. But rest assured that your display means something to others. I will say no more on this matter.

Had a direct encounter with the Creator at 19. Figured out shortly thereafter that not one written religion ever created accurately got the Creator, so the written words by men under threat of death (or worse) by Constantine have no weight for me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 02:34:03 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573381
You know maybe you should read that verse you posted.


People have the odd opinion now days that they should not be judged on their actions by others. They may cheat, lie, even steal- and the crime is on those who called them on it.

That is not the way things work. They are many sins that I could commit here. But noting that your behavior is something I don't admire is not one of them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 02:43:57 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573385
People have the odd opinion now days that they should not be judged on their actions by others. They may cheat, lie, even steal- and the crime is on those who called them on it.

That is not the way things work. They are many sins that I could commit here. But noting that your behavior is something I don't admire is not one of them.


Why are you attaching moral weight to how people play RPGs?

This is just getting bizarre :/
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 02:50:12 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573386
Why are you attaching moral weight to how people play RPGs?


Everything we do has moral weight. But to be honest, that's a secondary concern to me on this specific issue and on this board.

More important to me is that knowing that you don't follow the rules means that your opinions are tainted. I can't trust your statement on game systems because you haven't actually used them. I can't trust your gaming advice because it may well depend upon methods that I refuse to use. Your experiences are based upon a different foundation.

In short, we have no common ground for me to effectively consider anything you say or suggest on the subject of gaming. And so, I just simply ignore you unless you directly address me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 02:59:01 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573388
Everything we do has moral weight. But to be honest,

You are disastrously wrong, so much so that it actually make me worry about your wellbeing :(

How we play games holds no more moral weight than how we fold our shirts.

 
Quote
that's a secondary concern to me on this specific issue and on this board.

More important to me is that knowing that you don't follow the rules means that your opinions are tainted. I can't trust your statement on game systems because you haven't actually used them. I can't trust your gaming advice because it may well depend upon methods that I refuse to use. Your experiences are based upon a different foundation.
 
In short, we have no common ground for me to effectively consider anything you say or suggest on the subject of gaming. And so, I just simply ignore you unless you directly address me
.[/QUOTE]

Likewise with your fetish over "rules" I can't see you having anything worthwhile or meaningful to say on the topic of role-playing games.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 03:01:12 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573390
Likewise with your fetish over "rules" I can't see you having anything worthwhile or meaningful to say on the topic of role-playing games.


That's what a complete lack of common grounds means. Why did you feel the need to echo my statement?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 03:04:01 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573392
That's what a complete lack of common grounds means. Why did you feel the need to echo my statement?


Are you aware that you should like a colossal dick when you say things like this?

Honest question.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 03:09:45 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573393
Are you aware that you should like a colossal dick when you say things like this?

Honest question.


Of course anything I say sounds horrible to you, just like everything you say sounds horrible to me. That's the nature of not having any common ground between us.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 19, 2012, 03:17:06 AM
I've got gleichman on ignore, but piestro's quote of him begs a question from me.

Gleichman, if everything we do has moral weight, than what kind of moral quandry am I demonstrating when I take a crap?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 03:17:36 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573395
Of course anything I say sounds horrible to you, just like everything you say sounds horrible to me. That's the nature of not having any common ground between us.

So you are aware.

I assume this means you'll stop doing it then?

Stop patronizing everyone who disagrees with you?

I'm sorry I couldn't possibly use the word "horrible" to describe something I read on this forum about playing games. I certainly don't think anything you've said qualifies.

And since I'm now living in bizarro world I suppose a disclaimer is in order:
I don't think you're a bad person because you use a grid when you play and unwaveringly follow the rules.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 03:22:38 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573399
I assume this means you'll stop doing it then?

Stop patronizing everyone who disagrees with you?


I but state my opinion on things, and in so doing hold to them firmly unless I see reason to do otherwise. If I didn't, they wouldn't be worth stating in the first place.

If you and they consider this patronizing, that's all you and them. I'm responsible from my own opinions, not the reactions of others.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 19, 2012, 03:28:08 AM
So... what do people think about Republica? I think Saffron is good avatar material.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 03:29:11 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573401
I but state my opinion on things, and in so doing hold to them firmly unless I see reason to do otherwise. If I didn't, they wouldn't be worth stating in the first place.

If you and they consider this patronizing, that's all you and them. I'm responsible from my own opinions, not the reactions of others.


I'm not referring to your opinions.

You felt the need to ask me why I needed to repeat you.

Are you aware that that sounds arrogant and contributes nothing to the discussion?

Because the correct response in this situation when someone says, "Hey, you're kinda being a dick." is "oh, I'm sorry, I'll not do that anymore".

I know it's a crazy idea but I don't think we HAVE to shit on each other all the time.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 19, 2012, 03:31:24 AM
Wow. This got weird fast.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 03:32:44 AM
Quote from: Benoist;573405
Wow. This got weird fast.


You're telling me.

I think I need a new signature.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 19, 2012, 03:33:37 AM
Quote from: vytzka;573403
So... what do people think about Republica? I think Saffron is good avatar material.


She is hot and I like their music.

(http://www.vertigo-go.com/blogpics/saffron)

But that is something for another thread.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 03:40:31 AM
Quote from: Piestrio;573404
I'm not referring to your opinions.

You felt the need to ask me why I needed to repeat you.

Are you aware that that sounds arrogant and contributes nothing to the discussion?


Your statement was completely redundant to me. Ideally our exchange should have stopped before your post that I replied to.

Thus I wondered what drove you to make it. Did you not realize it was redundant? Was it a schoolyard type last parting taunt ("Well yeah... you too!)? Maybe there was a reason I was unaware of?


At this point I'm wondering point why you're continuing this exchange by asking me a question in every reply. There's nothing further to be said between us, it's clear we value nothing the other has to say.

I'm OK with that. Aren't you (no reply would be considered a yes btw)?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Piestrio on August 19, 2012, 03:46:20 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573410

At this point I'm wondering point why you're continuing this exchange by asking me a question in every reply. There's nothing further to be said between us, it's clear we value nothing the other has to say.

I'm OK with that. Aren't you (no reply would be considered a yes btw)?


I suppose. I'm just naturally curious and am...intrigued... by your rather odd behavior.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 19, 2012, 03:50:10 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573373
Interestingly enough, I'm in favor of player empowerment (as I previously defined it). And I design games, and GM games quite often indeed.

As GM, I get tend to get irked when players attempt to shift their power (aka responsibility) to me.


This, for me, a thousand times over.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 19, 2012, 08:47:26 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;573350
When 'what you want to talk about' includes denying that an observable behavior exists, complete with accusations that it has always existed throughout all forms of D&D, it kind of does.

Intellectual honesty needs to count for something.

Now, you can say "I don't do that" and you'd get little disagreement from me.  But so say "that never happens" tips your hand into trolling town.

Clearer?


1) You are an idiot. Learn to read and address what people actually say.

2) Can you point to anywhere in this thread where I deny any observable behavior exists?

3) Can you point to anywhere in this thread where I claim that any behaviour at all existed throughout all forms of D&D?

So... Aside from you being stupid and incapable of addressing what people have actually said, why do you think that anything you said here is relevant at all?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 09:06:12 AM
So many people here run games where it's impossible customize characters after level 1, in that environment a "Character Build" is impossible. This is the thing, in any game where players can chose from a menu of options it is possible to pick the one that is optimal. If any of you say you have in every game never chosen something because it will make the numbers on your character sheet bigger, you're a basket-weaver or lying liar who lies, probably both.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 19, 2012, 09:09:31 AM
Quote from: Kaelik;573461

So... Aside from you being stupid and incapable of addressing what people have actually said, why do you think that anything you said here is relevant at all?


That's amazing.  This is exactly what I think about everyone one of your moronic diatribes.  All I ever see out of you is specious word twisting without a shred of useful text, it's like you're just here specifically to be a disruptive asshat.

It makes me wish that Pundit had a specific 'go back to' smiley for you guys, but that would presume that he even bothered to acknowledge your existence, which I can't fault him for not indulging in.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 09:15:27 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573464
So many people here run games where it's impossible customize characters after level 1, in that environment a "Character Build" is impossible. This is the thing, in any game where players can chose from a menu of options it is possible to pick the one that is optimal. If any of you say you have in every game never chosen something because it will make the numbers on your character sheet bigger, you're a basket-weaver or lying liar who lies, probably both.


I agree that many gms fail at allowing players to customize characters after level 1. However, I do allow it within reason as a result of player driven actions in the setting.

Many gm/s do allow it.

I also agree with you that pretty much every player at some point does take something to improve their numbers.

But, there is a huge difference between taking the feat 'Weapon Focus Longsword' and having a 'build.'   HUGE difference :)

I had a fighte ronce that fought with a staff instead of a greatsword. i had focus staff, but it was to partially ungimp him, not any effort to optimize.

An optimizer would never use a staff.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;573250
That is awesome to actually do that. I am sure if you were blind it wouldn't be that hard to do also and without being a certified genius. Your friend should have asked her out.:)


He probably did.




I am always amazed at how blind people find their way around. I get lost in my own town :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 09:34:06 AM
Quote from: Bill;573468

I had a fighte ronce that fought with a staff instead of a greatsword. i had focus staff, but it was to partially ungimp him, not any effort to optimize.

Wrong
You were trying to optimize using a quarterstaff (not very well though weapon focus is a bad feat)
Quote from: Bill;573468

An optimizer would never use a staff.

Not necessarily It's the only double weapon I can think of that's not exotic. I've used it before.
Go to Minmax boards ask for an optimized quarterstaff fighter, the nice thing about minmaxing is that you can make less optimal things still good, why do you think people write handbooks for classes that are not Wizard or Druid
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 19, 2012, 09:42:10 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573464
So many people here run games where it's impossible customize characters after level 1, in that environment a "Character Build" is impossible. This is the thing, in any game where players can chose from a menu of options it is possible to pick the one that is optimal. If any of you say you have in every game never chosen something because it will make the numbers on your character sheet bigger, you're a basket-weaver or lying liar who lies, probably both.


There is an enormous difference between taking something optimal because it fits the character, and always and only taking the optimal choices. If I make a silver tongued swordsman who is the son of a basket weaver, I will be sure my choices related to swordplay are solid, but I will also be putting points in stuff like CHR and basketweaving to fill out the concept. At the same time, i have no problem playing an interesting character who isn't optimized and even has some serious weaknesses. It very much depends on the campaign, system and game group. i have been in optimization campaigns and can happily participate if that is the goal, but I genuinely prefer a mix of interesting characters at the table over maxed out builds. But then I am usually more interested in stuff like dialogue than combat (which I realize isn't everyone's cup of tea).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 09:44:15 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573474
(http://www.google.com/imgres?q=wrong+lex+luthor&um=1&hl=en&rlz=1T4TSNA_en___US385&biw=1366&bih=589&tbm=isch&tbnid=qOLTAX2ZibaOzM:&imgrefurl=http://geekinthecity.com/2009/12/23/the-other-top-10-graphic-novels-of-the-decade/&docid=9D5zv402nKSXEM&imgurl=http://geekinthecity.com/3point0/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg&w=480&h=282&ei=2ugwUNrePOXo0gGHvoC4CQ&zoom=1)
You were trying to optimize using a quarterstaff (not very well though weapon focus is a bad feat)

Not necessarily It's the only double weapon I can think of that's not exotic I've used it before.
Go to Minmax boards ask for an optimized quarterstaff fighter, the nice thing about minmaxing is that you can make less optimal things still good, why do you think people write handbooks for classes that are not Wizard or Druid


I was not optimizing. I was partially ungimping his ability to hit with a staff.

he was not a 'double weapon' type of guy. He was not dexterous or intelligent. A tough, willful, charismatic character.

I don't need to go to a minmax board. There is nothing difficult about optimizing.
The thing is, I play a character , not a collection of numbers.



And if I was to bother optimizing....any build with multiple attacks at penalty to hit should take focus, and greater focus.  


Make sme want to vomit just talking about builds and optimization :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 19, 2012, 09:45:54 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;573253
Just be up front about things and you will ALWAYS have players. It's when you switch stuff midstream or favor certain players or some other obvious dick move that causes the problems.


Yes, gaming is very much like the TV show; Bewitched. You don't just change dicks midstream. ;)

Quote from: Piestrio;573399
Stop patronizing everyone who disagrees with you?



Meh. Let him. Arguing with him over this is saying that we think his opinion matters.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573464
So many people here run games where it's impossible customize characters after level 1, in that environment a "Character Build" is impossible. This is the thing, in any game where players can chose from a menu of options it is possible to pick the one that is optimal. If any of you say you have in every game never chosen something because it will make the numbers on your character sheet bigger, you're a basket-weaver or lying liar who lies, probably both.


Did someone FINALLY learn the difference between optimization and character builds? Personal growth is a good thing mkay.

If I roll 6 stats, to be arranged to taste and decide to put the highest score in INT, then I have "optimized" for playing a magic user. Doing so isn't dishonest, its just a smart move.

Likewise, following a build based on a trail of breadcrumbs up to 20th level from a selection of permitted campaign options isn't cheating either. It is however, excessive rules fapping and obsessive fixation on mechanical manipulation. Concentrating on what a character CAN do, rather than stuff they are actually doing in the setting  sucks the fun right out of rpgs for me.

That kind of deck building,and optimizing to "win" via rules mastery turns the game into one of who can build the best deck and rule the table, thus displaying his superior cock to everyone else. This sort of thing is fine for a CCG, because the objective is to win.

The whole culture of WOTC D&D encourages competitive play. The game is structured to be a series of prepared challenge hoops that must be jumped, and survival depends on squeezing the best advantage from the rules possible. When success depends more on what shit you picked out of a list at level-up time than what choices you make during actual play it loses a vital quality of a role playing game.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 19, 2012, 09:46:22 AM
Quote from: Bill;573468
I agree that many gms fail at allowing players to customize characters after level 1. However, I do allow it within reason as a result of player driven actions in the setting.

Many gm/s do allow it.

I also agree with you that pretty much every player at some point does take something to improve their numbers.

But, there is a huge difference between taking the feat 'Weapon Focus Longsword' and having a 'build.'   HUGE difference :)

I had a fighte ronce that fought with a staff instead of a greatsword. i had focus staff, but it was to partially ungimp him, not any effort to optimize.

An optimizer would never use a staff.


On the contrary - some optimizers would.  If they start with a concept, like 'Little John' from Robin Hood, they might want to make the best staff-wielder they can.  Optimization isn't ALWAYS about doing the best thing - it's about achieving your concept in the best possible way.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 19, 2012, 09:47:05 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573476
There is an enormous difference between taking something optimal because it fits the character, and always and only taking the optimal choices. If I make a silver tongued swordsman who is the son of a basket weaver, I will be sure my choices related to swordplay are solid, but I will also be putting points in stuff like CHR and basketweaving to fill out the concept. At the same time, i have no problem playing an interesting character who isn't optimized and even has some serious weaknesses. It very much depends on the campaign, system and game group. i have been in optimization campaigns and can happily participate if that is the goal, but I genuinely prefer a mix of interesting characters at the table over maxed out builds. But then I am usually more interested in stuff like dialogue than combat (which I realize isn't everyone's cup of tea).


I agree with this.  I played a 2e rogue once who happened to be holding a +2 spear that we had just found when we were ambushed by a medusa.  My rogue wound up blind throwing the spear, and rolled a crit with it (twice in a row during that fight.  I wasn't going anywhere NEAR a medusa, so I was throwing shit at it).  After that, the rogue never went anywhere without it, even to the point of taking negative modifiers for hide and such because of carrying around a 2h weapon, and taking the -4 nonproficiency penalty, just because the character loved the spear so much.  There's something to be said for a character's perceptions of preference and attachment versus pure number crunching.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 09:48:56 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573479
On the contrary - some optimizers would.  If they start with a concept, like 'Little John' from Robin Hood, they might want to make the best staff-wielder they can.  Optimization isn't ALWAYS about doing the best thing - it's about achieving your concept in the best possible way.


See, we agree on that. What I hate is when a player brings a powergamed build to the table and pretends that they have any sort of concept other than 'I was born on Krypton'
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 10:33:33 AM
It was late and I missed reponding to this at the time.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573207
Sets the stage, yes.  Alters rules in the middle of a combat, on the fly? No.  Who does that?  You have a post where someone gives an example of doing just that?


Benoist, Sacrosanct, Marleycat, and Brenden are all on record as saying they do this- although with Brenden it seems it depends upon which way the wind is blowing today.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573207

Players should come to the table expecting the DM to have the right to judge what PrCs are allowed, as the rules clearly define that responsibility as the DMs.


Understand something here. I'm not defending 3rd edition, and I'm not defending the idea that players should demand PrCs.

What I'm saying is the the expections of skilled play the 3.x edition provides will prompt that behavior in players and that should be understood and dealt with by the 3.x GM. The 3rd edition rules are in effect self-defeating on this point in that with one hand it rewards CharOp by design, and yet on the other hand it tells the GM to deny the rewards that game is handing out.

Hardly a defense of 3.x, and far from saying the I think the DM is out to get me. Instead what I'm calling for here is understanding of what's driving the conflict, and why an otherwise reasonable player may take offense at a GM denying him the core goals the game system has offered.

My own solution to this problem was an easy one. To never use 3.x as my game system. Such conflicts shouldn't be seeded in the first place.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;573478
That kind of deck building,and optimizing to "win" via rules mastery turns the game into one of who can build the best deck and rule the table, thus displaying his superior cock to everyone else. This sort of thing is fine for a CCG, because the objective is to win.


Stop strawmannig. This is not my position, this is not anyone's position. This is not MGuy's position. This is not Kaelik's position. This in not deadDM's position. This is only you setting fire to rank and rank of men of straw while you masturbate furiously. Now get your straw filled head out of your straw filled ass and contribute to this thread. Otherwise masturbate to your strawmen by yourself where no one else can see you. Stop strawmaning.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;573478
The whole culture of WOTC D&D encourages competitive play. The game is structured to be a series of prepared challenge hoops that must be jumped, and survival depends on squeezing the best advantage from the rules possible. When success depends more on what shit you picked out of a list at level-up time than what choices you make during actual play it loses a vital quality of a role playing game.


 What you don't get is the CharOper's are here to help you. Minmaxboards is full of a handbooks for classes that are not Wizard or Druid, these are for new players. Builds posted on the internet, many of those are also for new players. No one should have to pour over books for hours and navigate the trap filled waters of 3e for the privilege of not sucking, the CharOpers serve up a build for whatever you want with a smile, it gives us something do other than see who make the most absurd theoretical build.
This is how it goes.

New Player: I just started playing 3e my character is a Druid.
CharOper: Have fun.

New Player: I just started playing 3e my character is a Wizard.
CharOper: Cool just remember Evocation is bad in 3e.

New Player: I just started playing 3e my character is a Fighter.
CharOper: ... let me get out my splatbooks.

New Player: I just started playing 3e my character is a Monk.
CharOper: I'm so sorry, their is nothing I can do to help you. ;_;
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 19, 2012, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573506



Benoist, Sacrosanct, Marleycat, and Brenden are all on record as saying they do this- although with Brenden it seems it depends upon which way the wind is blowing today..


Like what?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 19, 2012, 11:03:52 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573506

Benoist, Sacrosanct, Marleycat, and Brenden are all on record as saying they do this- although with Brenden it seems it depends upon which way the wind is blowing today.
.



In the games i run, i talk with the players before hand about what procedures will be in play and which won't. I then use those pretty consistently, and wouldn't typically do something like change the rules mid combat (unless the outcome made no sense, in which case I think a good GM is supposed to step in). What i do like is rules systems that give me room to make judgments and improvise in specific situations over having granular rules for everything.

I am not opposed to others making changes during combat if it makes their game better however.

On the windblowin remark, I will say this though. This is a message board not a master's thesis. I would be surprised if I haven't contradicted myself at various places as usually I am pretty much just thinking outloud and open to changing my position on things as well.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 11:08:32 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573517
What i do like is rules systems that give me room to make judgments and improvise in specific situations over having granular rules for everything.


Bolding mine. This is the classic statement of "Rulings, not Rules".


Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573517

On the windblowin remark, I will say this though. This is a message board not a master's thesis. I would be surprised if I haven't contradicted myself at various places as usually I am pretty much just thinking outloud and open to changing my position on things as well.


I've seen you contradict youself many times. I have never seen you admit that you've changed your position.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 11:17:33 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573506
It was late and I missed reponding to this at the time.



Benoist, Sacrosanct, Marleycat, and Brenden are all on record as saying they do this- although with Brenden it seems it depends upon which way the wind is blowing today.



Understand something here. I'm not defending 3rd edition, and I'm not defending the idea that players should demand PrCs.

What I'm saying is the the expections of skilled play the 3.x edition provides will prompt that behavior in players and that should be understood and dealt with by the 3.x GM. The 3rd edition rules are in effect self-defeating on this point in that with one hand it rewards CharOp by design, and yet on the other hand it tells the GM to deny the rewards that game is handing out.

Hardly a defense of 3.x, and far from saying the I think the DM is out to get me. Instead what I'm calling for here is understanding of what's driving the conflict, and why an otherwise reasonable player may take offense at a GM denying him the core goals the game system has offered.

My own solution to this problem was an easy one. To never use 3.x as my game system. Such conflicts shouldn't be seeded in the first place.


A gm that never bends the rules is doing it wrong.

The hard part, is knowing when to bend the rules, and to not bend the rules when there is no good reason.


Blindly following RAW makes a game less fun because game mechanics can't adjust themselves when they simply don't work.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 11:19:47 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573517
In the games i run, i talk with the players before hand about what procedures will be in play and which won't. I then use those pretty consistently, and wouldn't typically do something like change the rules mid combat (unless the outcome made no sense, in which case I think a good GM is supposed to step in). What i do like is rules systems that give me room to make judgments and improvise in specific situations over having granular rules for everything.

I am not opposed to others making changes during combat if it makes their game better however.

On the windblowin remark, I will say this though. This is a message board not a master's thesis. I would be surprised if I haven't contradicted myself at various places as usually I am pretty much just thinking outloud and open to changing my position on things as well.


Add me to that list. I would never ruin a game with an illogical result spawned from RAW.

That being said, I tend to use the rules as written as closely as possible.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 11:20:39 AM
Quote from: Bill;573527
A gm that never bends the rules is doing it wrong.


And we add Bill to the list.

IMO, a GM that needs to bend the rules- is using the wrong rules. He should get some that actual do what he wants.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 19, 2012, 11:22:38 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573520
Bolding mine. This is the classic statement of "Rulings, not Rules".




I've seen you contradict youself many times. I have never seen you admit that you've changed your position.


All you have done is make general claims that I have contradicted myself. I wont deny it is entirely possible I have done so. Nor did I attribute all such instances to changing my mind. Its entirley possible I was paying too much attention to what I was saying or what was being said and contradicted myself. It also possible you just didn't understand the nuance oof some of my positions or I failed to express it clearly (its even possible some of my positions are inherently conradictory and I am unaware of it). If there is a place where you think I am being ambiguous or inconsistent ask me about it and I am happy to clarify. if it bothers you that much I am perfectly willing to address it. Though I cannot promise you will be satisfied with my response.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Ladybird on August 19, 2012, 11:23:47 AM
Quote from: Bill;573477
I was not optimizing. I was partially ungimping his ability to hit with a staff.

he was not a 'double weapon' type of guy. He was not dexterous or intelligent. A tough, willful, charismatic character.)


No, rubbish. You were making the character better at using the thing that they did. And there is nothing wrong with that. It maybe wasn't to "charop" levels, but it was hardly just "ungimping".

Playing a quarterstaff fighter and, for example, taking sword-based feats, would be absolutely retarded.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 19, 2012, 11:23:51 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573533
And we add Bill to the list.

IMO, a GM that needs to bend the rules- is using the wrong rules. He should get some that actual do what he wants.


I think the problem is you are mistaking statements about what people tend to do as absolute statements of what they always do.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 11:26:26 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573536
If there is a place where you think I am being ambiguous or inconsistent ask me about it and I am happy to clarify. if it bothers you that much I am perfectly willing to address it. Though I cannot promise you will be satisfied with my response.


I'd done that (did it very recently in fact), typically you just ignore it. I've given up.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 19, 2012, 11:29:52 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573542
I'd done that (did it very recently in fact), typically you just ignore it. I've given up.


If you did, I either missed it, or didn't see what specific contradiction you were pointing to. I wasn't ignoring your posts. I do recall you quoting me saying something to the effect of I tend to run games raw and then said I was condradiciton myself. But wasn't sure which post you felt I was contradicting (and without that info it is a bit difficult to repond).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 11:31:54 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573539
I think the problem is you are mistaking statements about what people tend to do as absolute statements of what they always do.


They don't make claims of rarity in their statements, everything they say implies it's their common means of operating.

Plus the insults they hurl at someone who plays RAW (indicating that they them be sub-human. OCD. Aspergers. Etc.) shows me that the feeling is very strongly held indeed- a core element of their gaming identity. If they only rarely overrode the rules, they'd more understanding and less insulting.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 19, 2012, 11:35:56 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573508
Stop strawmannig. This is not my position, this is not anyone's position. This is not MGuy's position. This is not Kaelik's position. This in not deadDM's position. This is only you setting fire to rank and rank of men of straw while you masturbate furiously. Now get your straw filled head out of your straw filled ass and contribute to this thread. Otherwise masturbate to your strawmen by yourself where no one else can see you. Stop strawmaning.


In the vocabulary contest of the week to see who can shit the same meaningless word into a paragraph the most times (drumroll please......)

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573508


 What you don't get is the CharOper's are here to help you. Minmaxboards is full of a handbooks for classes that are not Wizard or Druid, these are for new players. Builds posted on the internet, many of those are also for new players. No one should have to pour over books for hours and navigate the trap filled waters of 3e for the privilege of not sucking, the CharOpers serve up a build for whatever you want with a smile, it gives us something do other than see who make the most absurd theoretical build.
This is how it goes.

New Player: I just started playing 3e my character is a Druid.
CharOper: Have fun.

New Player: I just started playing 3e my character is a Wizard.
CharOper: Cool just remember Evocation is bad in 3e.

New Player: I just started playing 3e my character is a Fighter.
CharOper: ... let me get out my splatbooks.

New Player: I just started playing 3e my character is a Monk.
CharOper: I'm so sorry, their is nothing I can do to help you. ;_;


Thanks for proving my point better than I could ever think of doing. Here we have a new player, excited to partake of fantasy adventure gaming and the first thing we discuss is how to have mechanical capabilities worthy of wanking off to.

Nothing about the campaign world or the types of adventures undertaken, or about the friendship and good times had while sharing a creative experience.

New players should not have to worry about making a zillion little decisions before they even pick up the dice or be told to do this, this and this or get ridiculed by the group for excessive suckage.

A new player should be able to roll up a character, play however they wish without being an ass to other people, and be allowed to discover the game at a pace they are comfortable with. They can jerk off to how much fucking damage their elf can generate in a round later if they like the game enough to keep playing.  

Nope, its all about how not to suck N00b. This is MMO culture come to the tabletop.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 19, 2012, 11:43:15 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573546
They don't make claims of rarity in their statements, everything they say implies it's their common means of operating.

Plus the insults they hurl at someone who plays RAW (indicating that they them be sub-human. OCD. Aspergers. Etc.) shows me that the feeling is very strongly held indeed- a core element of their gaming identity.


I see a lot of qualifiers from some of the posters.

As I have said, I do tend to run games RAW (though if I ran 3E again, I wouldn't because I am not saitsified with many of the rules). If there are rules in a game, and there is nothing wrong with them, My tendancy as Gm is to use those rules pretty consistently, because to me it feels more fair. That doesn't mean I won't adapt or feel constrained when the rules simply are not working. If a rule is producing odd results (or i know it will produce odd reuslts) I will step in as Gm and say, i am going to something different to resolve this situation and here is what I have in mind.

I have said before I dont care for the insults much. I think it weakens peoples' arguments to hurl them around a lot. I don't like name calling, but i also feel like we are all adults here and can handle it.

Either way, i dont think I have ever said you were a bad gamer because you play differenlty than me, or used anything approaching the kind o flanguage you describe in reference to your playstyle. The only thing I recall taking issue with is some of the arrogance I kept getting from your posts. But even that is charming 80% of the time.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 19, 2012, 11:51:53 AM
Quote from: vytzka;573403
So... what do people think about Republica? I think Saffron is good avatar material.

Drop Dead Gorgeous was a good song, but for 90's britpop my tastes run more toward Stereolab, Elastica, Supergrass and Blur.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 11:55:44 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573554
If a rule is producing odd results (or i know it will produce odd reuslts) I will step in as Gm and say, i am going to something different to resolve this situation and here is what I have in mind.


How often does this happen?

Plus one should keep in mind, that I would consider a game played without maps and minis (or their equal) using a system with range and line of sight rules to be "i am going to something different to resolve this situation"., i.e. not playing by the rules.


Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573554

I have said before I dont care for the insults much..


Remember the old saw, "silence gives consent"? Even worse than silence is when you join in on the side of a wolf-pack attacking the same target. You're directly aiding those doing things you don't "care for".

I will however have to admit that the bile here is so common, that doing otherwise would basically mean you never make a post. To counter that, I've never seen you side against the group-think here (and I have seen that from Black Vulmea, impressed me greatly he did).


Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573554

Either way, i dont think I have ever said you were a bad gamer because you play differenlty than me, or used anything approaching the kind o flanguage you describe in reference to your playstyle.


You have not, which is why in I called you out as one of the few more reasonable posters here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=573515&postcount=30).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 19, 2012, 12:15:24 PM
That's a lot of drama for a bunch of people trading insults over elf-games on the Internet. "Wolf-pack"? Really? (I tried collating a still from The Hangover but found none to my liking)

I'm not a fan of the shit-flinging, either, gleichman, but I too have a hard time understanding what it is that you expect from the forum if you've already established that you hate it.

I stick around because the games I play and like are fairly popular around here. TSR-era D&D and its OSR simulacra, CoC, RQ, Traveller, WFRP, Palladium stuff, and there's even a small but passionate contingent of WoD fans. You have knowledgeable grognards like thedungeondelver and Planet Algol without the get-offa-my-lawnisms of a Dragonsfoot or K&K. You have guys like Aos (sorry, "Gib"), Spike, misterguignol, Sacrificial Lamb and others sharing their campaign material and actual play reports. You have small-press designers like BedrockBrendan and clash and Silverlion. You have the Pundit, too, who's a pain in the ass sometimes but often makes a good point when he's not out to "save" the hobby from the "Swine".

It's not a bad forum, but it's not for the faint of heart.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: GameDaddy on August 19, 2012, 12:17:46 PM
I do like some things about 3e, and in fact would run a game (Especially if it involved Eberron or SpyCraft) on request.

I like feats. Having a build tree of extra abilities for new characters, and so that players have some options to customize their character as they advance, makes introducing new players to the game easier. Later on, as they get more adept at playing, I would also let them create their own Feats.  

I like skills. Having a baseline, and having some players choose specific non-combat skills to improve helped make more interesting characters.

The Profession skill required some rework. Instead of automatically guaranteeing players would earn X amount of gold over a given period of time, I let the players use their profession skill as a die-roll modifier for the variable amount of gold that they would earn over that time. The folks with Professions skills earned more in-between adventures this way.

I liked the Craft skills as well. Nothing like having a character MacGuyver their way out of a difficult situation. Sadly though, not many players opted to choose or use craft skills in my games. Not sure why on this...

The magic crafting rules were really broken, and required a complete redesign.

Likewise the character class tables as written ensured that PrC and non-core character classes, as well as multi-class characters were always less powerful than the core classes in the game. This was fixed with optional rules in Arcana Unearthed, but for the longest time sorcerers made for better battle mages than wizards, but they were much less adept in casting new spells, making magic items, and in using new magics discovered during the course of the game.

I never did understand the obsession with building optimal damage / spellcasting characters in lieu of creating more interesting characters for roleplaying. I think this goes back to the way 3e rewards combat much more than roleplaying. Never did  I see a supplement for GMs published (with the exception of SpyCraft) that contained a concise and comprehensive set of rules for building adventures that included XP awards for non-combat and role-playing activities.

I wouldn't blame the 3e players for that though, because that was a design weakness of the 3e itself included by the designers.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 19, 2012, 01:10:41 PM
What happened?  4e was proven to be a failure, so now the target is 3e?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 19, 2012, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;572947
Stormbringer misunderstood my point but you covered it in spades *curtsies*.
Apologies, I thought you were talking about the Skills&Powers stuff in relation to 3.x.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 02:12:18 PM
Quote from: The Butcher;573568
I'm not a fan of the shit-flinging, either, gleichman, but I too have a hard time understanding what it is that you expect from the forum if you've already established that you hate it.


As I've said before, there are few posters that write stuff I like to read. It's digging through the chaff, but can be worth it once in a while.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 02:22:55 PM
If many people in this thread upset me it is because I have had people like them as my DM. DMs who froth at the mouth over minmaxing have at least one universal trait, they don't know jack shit about minmaxing. All the complaints in this thread have been about Fighters (and similar classes).
Who dips into other classes? Fighters, that's who, they need to grab stuff from other classes the most.

Who plans their feats out in advanced? Fighters, they're the ones that have long convoluted feat trees.

 Everyone (save druids) likes PrCs but for casters they're a fine dessert to go with a tasty meal, For non-casters all to often no PrCs means taking away their main course and leaving them with only the bread-sticks.

I don't mind losing non-core and PrCs all that much I can just sigh and hope that my Gish will see the light of day in some other game, it's just nerfing Fighters is unforgivable.

Once the DM is done nerfing non-casters and going ape on some poor kid with a freshly bought splatbook it falls to me to put on my wizard hat keep the party alive. As a wizard I don't measure victory in damage dealt or monsters slain but in how many sessions I can go without losing a party member

I don't know why I do this, is it for the challenge, is it out of some warped loyalty to my party members, is it because I enjoy the bitter irony of the DM going off on the poor shlub who multiclassed fighter and barbarian while a wizard player like me stealth minmaxes next to him (or maybe I'm just a masochist I did join this forum).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
Quote from: Rum Cove;573583
What happened?  4e was proven to be a failure, so now the target is 3e?


Well... yes actually.

I think the hatred of 4E spilled over and now its sins are a witch hunt targeting the the previous version it grew out of. It's also spilling over to 5E, where any hint that anything surviving from 4E into it is a crime against mankind.

The earlier versions are safe for now, for... well, I don't really know why they are safe to be honest. But I guess now and then they have to have something to talk about in a semi-positive way.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 19, 2012, 02:49:01 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573607
If many people in this thread upset me it is because I have had people like them as my DM.

Tell us where the bad DM touched you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: LordVreeg on August 19, 2012, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Benoist;573619
Tell us where the bad DM touched you.


Fine, beat me to it....(seriously, all that venom, and that is it at the origination point?)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 19, 2012, 03:43:03 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573607
Non sequiturial blather.


So...have you ever even once considered the mere possibility that there are gamers out there who play versions of D&D that AREN'T 3rd or 4th edition?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 19, 2012, 03:53:56 PM
Quote from: Rum Cove;573583
What happened?  4e was proven to be a failure, so now the target is 3e?


Sure looks that way.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 04:07:55 PM
Quote from: Benoist;573619
Tell us where the bad DM touched you.


The same place you touch your players every session because you are a bad DM.

You, Stormbringer, Sacrosanct, Marleycat, and Brenden, all are on record as willing to change the rules mid-game specifically to fuck over players. This make you a bad DM and a bad person.

The DM is the arbitrator of the rules that doesn’t and should't give the DM unlimited power because the DM accedes to the social contract at the table and the social contract binds everyone. Now I can see why you are butthurt, at your table the contract is the players must suck your cock. 3E players expect a different social contract.

They expect to have house rules spelled out to them before they sit down to play.

They expect the DM to be fair with his rulings, not altering the rules specifically for the benefit of one player or to the detriment of another

They expect to be able to pick abilities from a large array and for the DM to have a good faith reason for what he allows and bans.

When players complain when you violate this contract they aren't being entitled. They are calling you out for what you are a bully who hides his thinly veiled contempt for his players behind his DM screen.

One more time. If you let someone bring a character to your table only to yank the rules out from under them, you are unambiguously in the wrong. This dose not convince players you are right it just convinces them you are a huge asshole.

You know I've considered playing 2e but if it means dealing with people like you it's not worth it. Even if I can be a Gish from level 1.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 04:18:01 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573657
You, Stormbringer, Sacrosanct, Marleycat, and Brenden, all are on record as willing to change the rules mid-game specifically to fuck over players.


To be fair, they are on record as "willing to change the rules mid-game" but they are not are record as doing so to "specifically to fuck over players".

They likely don't have players who would notice or even care about the negative effects of such GMing.

The only harm here is that they don't understand (and they hate) players who would notice and care.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 19, 2012, 04:18:42 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573657
3E players expect a different social contract.


Some do seem to expect a different social contract than was generally assumed for TSR D&D, but not all do. Many are just fine with 3e ran under the same type of social contract associated with TSR editions of D&D.

As long as the GM makes it clear what type of social contract his campaign is running under, I don't see what the problem is. If it is a social contract like you suggest 3e players want, folks like me will know to stay the hell away because we probably will not enjoy the game all that much. If it is a social contract more like those normal for TSR D&D, I'll know I will at least be comfortable trying the game and you know you will probably hate it.

I see no reason that every 3e group has to run a social contract that you would like nor do I see those who do not as some type of bad GM and/or bad players.

Those who like the Rules as Written, Charop, etc. certainly should be able to form groups with a social contract that enables their style of play. However, those who prefer rulings over rules, dislike extreme CharOp, don't like rules lawyers arguing rules in the middle of the game, etc. should aso be able to form groups with a social contract that enables their style of play.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 19, 2012, 04:19:26 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573657
The same place you touch your players every session because you are a bad DM.

You, Stormbringer, Sacrosanct, Marleycat, and Brenden, all are on record as willing to change the rules mid-game specifically to fuck over players. This make you a bad DM and a bad person. .


When did I ever say this?  Stop repeating what Gleichman said (who I asked the same question of and he failed to produce any quote of me doing that) and show me where I said anything even remotely close to this.

So show me, or shut the fuck up and stop posting.  If you're going to just make shit up because you feel like it, then you have no integrity in this discussion anyway and might as well not even post.

Quote from: gleichman;573663
To be fair, they are on record as "willing to change the rules mid-game" but they are not are record as doing so to "specifically to fuck over players".
.

Still waiting for you to show me where I'm "on record" for being willing to change rules mid game.  And I don't think you know what the phrase "to be fair" means.  Same goes for you.  Put up, or shut up.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 19, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573657
The same place you touch your players every session because you are a bad DM.
Nice projection here, dude. Are you taking meds for that?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 19, 2012, 04:23:03 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573663
They likely don't have players who would notice or even care about the negative effects of such GMing.

Or even have players who consider the effect to be positive most of the time. Just because you consider it negative for your style of play does not mean everyone else has to so consider it.

Quote
The only harm here is that they don't understand (and they hate) players who would notice and care.

I understand players who do not like rulings over rules play. I don't hate them, but as I do not agree with them and am not going to change the way I run games to make them happy, I don't play at the same table with them. This is good for both sides. I don't enjoy their preferred style of play and they don't enjoy mine.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 04:27:36 PM
Quote from: Benoist;573667
Nice projection here, dude. Are you taking meds for that?


No counter-argument just insults that's cool. So I guess that means you can't refute my point, got it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 19, 2012, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: RandallS;573668
Or even have players who consider the effect to be positive most of the time. Just because you consider it negative for your style of play does not mean everyone else has to so consider it.


.


We prefer a style where you have judgement calls and player discussion/consensus on how non-RAW things should be handled.  It speaks volumes about Gleichman that he considers that a bad thing.  It makes me wonder if he's a kind of person who has never been able to reach consensus with the rest of his players and thus views groups who can discuss things rationally without resorting to whining and crying as a myth.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 19, 2012, 04:33:51 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573672
No counter-argument just insults that's cool. So I guess that means you can't refute my point, got it.


Answer my question earlier.  The fact that you would say the above is really breaking my irony meter, which I happened to have reinforced before reading your posts.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 19, 2012, 04:34:22 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573672
No counter-argument just insults that's cool. So I guess that means you can't refute my point, got it.


I love it when you guys are claiming pyrrhic victories like this. :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 04:38:03 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;573680
Answer my question earlier.  The fact that you would say the above is really breaking my irony meter, which I happened to have reinforced before reading your posts.


You see I show how his argument is wrong and insult him, he skipped part one. More and more I suspect that you guys don't read all of my post before responding I know the big words make your head hurt but at least try

Benoist. The 3e Social Contract.

Have house rules spelled out to them before they sit down to play.

Be fair with his rulings, not altering the rules specifically for the benefit of one player or to the detriment of another

The DM should have a good faith reason for what he allows and bans.

When players complain when you violate this contract they aren't being entitled. They are calling you out for what you are a bully who hides his thinly veiled contempt for his players behind his DM screen.

Got It.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 19, 2012, 04:40:09 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573683
You see I show how his argument is wrong and insult him, he skipped part one


Answer my question, fuckpig!

Are you or are you not aware that there are people who play TSR D&D rather than WotC D&D?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 19, 2012, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;573666
When did I ever say this?  Stop repeating what Gleichman said (who I asked the same question of and he failed to produce any quote of me doing that) and show me where I said anything even remotely close to this.

So show me, or shut the fuck up and stop posting.  If you're going to just make shit up because you feel like it, then you have no integrity in this discussion anyway and might as well not even post.



Still waiting for you to show me where I'm "on record" for being willing to change rules mid game.  And I don't think you know what the phrase "to be fair" means.  Same goes for you.  Put up, or shut up.


I never do ANYTHING mid game Mistborn. There is a reason Gleichman is the only person on my IL. I don't like anal tauts but stupid anal twats cross my threshold of civility.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 04:46:17 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;573685
Answer my question, fuckpig!

Are you or are you not aware that there are people who play TSR D&D rather than WotC D&D?


This thread is about 3e. Do you even want my coments about other editions. I do own the core for 2e and 4e.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 19, 2012, 04:47:28 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573683
*snip evasion*.


Put up or shut up. Show me where I am on record for changing rules mid game to fuck over the players.

You can't keep telling people that they ignore your points while doing the exact same thing and have any intellectual honesty whatsoever.

So show me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 04:48:33 PM
RandallS, I'm taking you off the ignore list for now. I'm doing this mostly because judging from passages quoting you- you haven't been spreading the same bile as Benoist and others here lately. I fear this will be a mistake.


Quote from: RandallS;573668
Or even have players who consider the effect to be positive most of the time. Just because you consider it negative for your style of play does not mean everyone else has to so consider it.


I'm sure they consider it to be positive if they consider it at all. IMO they are wrong, but it's acceptable as long as they refain from attacking and insulting players who play RAW.



Quote from: RandallS;573668

I understand players who do not like rulings over rules play. I don't hate them, but as I do not agree with them and am not going to change the way I run games to make them happy, I don't play at the same table with them. This is good for both sides. I don't enjoy their preferred style of play and they don't enjoy mine.


I seriously doubt it. You were on my ignore list for reason and it wasn't for the live and let live attitude you're attempting here. Let's see if you can walk that talk going forward.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 19, 2012, 04:49:14 PM
I never do ANYTHING mid game Mistborn. There is a reason Gleichman is the only person on my IL. I don't like anal twats but stupid anal twats cross my threshold of civility. I am completely up front about my rules you can start walking if you don't agree with them. I will change midstream IF and only if they're not working for both myself AND my players by unanimous vote.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 19, 2012, 04:52:20 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573689
This thread is about 3e. Do you even want my coments about other editions. I do own the core for 2e and 4e.


The PREMISE of this thread is that asshole players choose to play 3rd edition over versions of D&D because the game rewards min-maxxing, charop bullshit, rules lawyering, and general self-centered dickishness.

Basically, if your favorite edition of D&D is 3.x/Pathfinder, it probably means that you suck as a human being.

Do you or do you not agree with this premise and why?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 19, 2012, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;573698


Basically, if your favorite edition of D&D is 3.x/Pathfinder, it probably means that you suck as a human being.

Do you or do you not agree with this premise and why?


This is bullshit fallacy, honestly.  Everything you said about the premise is true because 3e offers a much better "haven" for munchkins than any other edition because the way it was designed, but it's a lazy fallacy to say the above.  You should know better.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 19, 2012, 04:58:32 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573689
This thread is about 3e. Do you even want my coments about other editions. I do own the core for 2e and 4e.

Keep digging that hole. Hint for you, it is not about the system it's about the people, and despite me trying to defend the system you keep proving the OP correct. It really is a munchkin haven but it's totally fixable with some limits on what's allowed.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 19, 2012, 05:04:25 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;573701
This is bullshit fallacy, honestly.  Everything you said about the premise is true because 3e offers a much better "haven" for munchkins than any other edition because the way it was designed, but it's a lazy fallacy to say the above.  You should know better.

I have yet to be proven wrong in that assertion, since I haven't met a 3gger that ISN'T a scabbed over semen stain on the drawers of humanity.

Also if the premise is true, then how is it fallacious? Why would you actively seek a haven for shitty gamers if you aren't in fact a shitty gamer?

Anyway...that question was for Lord Mistborn, because he needs to stop his aspie yammering about monks and druids and get the fuck on task...or he'll only be proving my point.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 05:09:37 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573533
And we add Bill to the list.

IMO, a GM that needs to bend the rules- is using the wrong rules. He should get some that actual do what he wants.


I have great fun gming all manner of rpg's. I think I am doing it right.

The rules do what I want. they provide a framework that works most of the time.

I simply adjust when the rules fail.


ALL rules fail in an rpg. Wargame rules can be RAW, and work.

rpg? no way.

That being said, I do keep to RAW right up until the rules fail.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 19, 2012, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;573710
I have yet to be proven wrong in that assertion, since I haven't met a 3gger that ISN'T a scabbed over semen stain on the drawers of humanity.
.


Marlycat plays 3e as her preferred version, if I recall correctly.  I'm also in a 3e campaign (because the books were free, but we probably won't continue after too long because it's not a system we prefer).

The problem is the people, not the game.  My group gets along well and we all respect each other, and because of that, we don't have any of the problems in 3ed that you hear about.  No balance issues, etc.  It's because of our personal relationships, and not the game we happen to be playing.

3e is the system that allows the most munchkinism, so it attracts the munchkins.  But that doesn't mean everyone who plays it is a munchkin.  Just like the Tea Party is a group that attracts the most racists, but that doesn't mean you're a racist if you're part of the tea party.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 05:16:02 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573326
Edit: opps, my first response was completely wrong, likely because I can't believe anyone would actually say something like that.

It's just flatly amazing. A bit like saying that body building makes people fat and weak. Or that higher math results in people not being able to do math.


Have you considerd that the map tracks positions for you, therefore you need not think about it?

Your examples is backwards by the way.

Using your mind to track positions improves the mind. Using a map is being lazy.


Using your mind is closer to higher math than using a map by far!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573332
What he's saying makes no sense at all.

People don't learn position skills by thinking about imaginary positions. All that does is reforce whatever nonsense they've dreamed up in their heads as there's no objective reality to compare it to.

Now if they visualize the map, while someone else actual tracks it on a real map (like some chess players do playing blindfold against a opponent with a board)- that's a different matter. But that's not the impression I'm getting here.



Seriously? what's better for the mind...doing math in your head, or using a calculator?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 19, 2012, 05:20:14 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;573716
Marlycat plays 3e as her preferred version, if I recall correctly.  I'm also in a 3e campaign (because the books were free, but we probably won't continue after too long because it's not a system we prefer).

The problem is the people, not the game.  My group gets along well and we all respect each other, and because of that, we don't have any of the problems in 3ed that you hear about.  No balance issues, etc.  It's because of our personal relationships, and not the game we happen to be playing.

3e is the system that allows the most munchkinism, so it attracts the munchkins.  But that doesn't mean everyone who plays it is a munchkin.  Just like the Tea Party is a group that attracts the most racists, but that doesn't mean you're a racist if you're part of the tea party.


You're correct in both your assessment and my preferred system.  I do however prefer Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder over 3e. But that's irrelevant to the actual point of the question and your answer.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 05:21:06 PM
Quote from: Bill;573722
Seriously? what's better for the mind...doing math in your head, or using a calculator?


Go back and read further in the thread and I make what I was saying more clear in a later post.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 19, 2012, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;573716
Marlycat plays 3e as her preferred version, if I recall correctly.  I'm also in a 3e campaign (because the books were free, but we probably won't continue after too long because it's not a system we prefer).

The problem is the people, not the game.  My group gets along well and we all respect each other, and because of that, we don't have any of the problems in 3ed that you hear about.  No balance issues, etc.  It's because of our personal relationships, and not the game we happen to be playing.

3e is the system that allows the most munchkinism, so it attracts the munchkins.  But that doesn't mean everyone who plays it is a munchkin.  Just like the Tea Party is a group that attracts the most racists, but that doesn't mean you're a racist if you're part of the tea party.


I don't recall ever claiming that Marleycat ISN'T a crusted over semen stain.

Anyway, Marleycat prefers Fantasycraft.

Also, if you were paying attention, you would notice that I didn't say that people who PLAY 3rd edition are shitty human beings exactly...I said that people who PREFER 3rd edition are shitty human beings.

Furthermore, 3rd edition allows for the most munchkinism and rules-based pixel bitching. Why would you prefer that version of D&D if you aren't in fact a munchkin or a pixel bitching rules lawyer, who as we all know are absolute cunts.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 19, 2012, 05:23:56 PM
Quote from: Bill;573714
ALL rules fail in an rpg. Wargame rules can be RAW, and work.

rpg? no way.
I think it's interesting to point out that at least part of the house ruling tradition of RPGs actually is a legacy of the wargaming hobby that birthed it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 19, 2012, 05:25:16 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;573728


Also, if you were paying attention, you would notice that I didn't say that people who PLAY 3rd edition are shitty human beings exactly...I said that people who PREFER 3rd edition are shitty human beings.


Still a really bad, and lazy, fallacy.
Quote


Furthermore, 3rd edition allows for the most munchkinism and rules-based pixel bitching. Why would you prefer that version of D&D if you aren't in fact a munchkin or a pixel bitching rules lawyer, who as we all know are absolute cunts.


In the words of Old Geezer:  "That's the edition I started with, and we still have fun playing, so why spend money on something else if I'm having fun with this?"

Seriously, there are plenty of reasons why people would prefer 3e (or any edition) without them being a munchkin asshole.  With statements like these, you are no better than the 3tards or 4vengers.  It's a statement with little factual basis but more of just personal hate for a system.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 05:25:19 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573336
So in your view...

A chess player, using the board and pieces isn't imagining where pieces are going to be in future moves... Just like players of tactical RPGs are not imagining future positions either.

And even if he is, in your mind it's more important to remember past positions... as if a chess (or tactical rpg) player isn't keeping track of that as well in order to second guess future moves of his foe based upon past history...

Is that really your claim here? Because I happen to know that the reality for players such as myself is much different.




That's really my only claim. Being more precise is highly important for players interested in tactical gaming. Being imprecise to any degree above the abstraction allowed by the rules is seen as breaking the rules (i.e. cheating).

Not everyone is enthralled with resource management. There are other styles of gaming that value precision of actiona and precision.


Obviously a chess player using a board will find it easier to plan ahead moves.

Playing without a board is HARDER.

I don't play rpg's like a game of chess anyway. Chess is a game of pure logic and math with a tiny dash of poker.

Rpg's, to me, are not math.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Bill;573714
ALL rules fail in an rpg. Wargame rules can be RAW, and work.


Wargames often are house ruled, be it to add things that were part of the original published edition to rules for continuing campaigns.

I once turned SPI's Air War into an RPG in this way.


Quote from: Bill;573714

rpg? no way.


I do it every time I play.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 05:27:48 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;573698
The PREMISE of this thread is that asshole players choose to play 3rd edition over versions of D&D because the game rewards min-maxxing, charop bullshit,


Not so-much reward as require. The Monster Manual/CR system gives benchmarks you have to meet, in 3e it is way to easy to not meet those benchmarks. Some classes simply can't meet those benchmarks or need a lot of work to meet them, this is a major flaw of 3e. Other classes easily meet or exceed them, this is a more minor flaw. Part of the Social Contract of 3e is everyone has to agree on how powerful characters are allowed to be.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;573698
rules lawyering,

Rules lawyering exist wherever their are rules, but it may be a trade off for a rules heavy system.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;573698
and general self-centered dickishness.

This is a problem with people not any ruleset.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;573698
Basically, if your favorite edition of D&D is 3.x/Pathfinder, it probably means that you suck as a human being.

Do you or do you not agree with this premise and why?

I'm not going to say that 3rd edition is for everyone, some people prefer rules light games. 3E is best if everyone is a non-asshole CharOper. High Optimization games are easyer to get into than you think like I've said before a lot of what we do on Minmaxboards is try to find ways to make "bad" classes able to contribute and help new players pick up the class they want to play, we also genraly try to point out stuff that's to broken for 90% of games.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 05:29:48 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573359
No. Using the tool makes you better at using the tool and that makes you at achieving the goal.

Using a hammer to build a house is far more productive in getting a house built than imagining that you using a hammer to build a house. Or using math to solve problems is better than imagining you're using math to solve a problem.

The key difference is that your success in one is a measured reality- a new house, or a solved math problem. Other people can objectively double check you work and agree that the house is built or the math problem solved.

The imaginary methods ends up with exactly what you put into it- unrealized pipe dreams that no one can objectively verify.


I can solve a math problem in my head, or design a dnd scenario in my head.

The math problem is solved, and I can explain how I solved it if anyone asks.

My dnd scenario crafted in my head can be played just fine.

I have done both many, many times in my life.

They are quite real regardless of being on paper or in my head.



Besides, carpentry is a poor example, as it requires pysical skills as well as mental.

Dnd is all mental (well...and social)  :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 19, 2012, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;573728
I don't recall ever claiming that Marleycat ISN'T a crusted over semen stain.

Anyway, Marleycat prefers Fantasycraft.

Also, if you were paying attention, you would notice that I didn't say that people who PLAY 3rd edition are shitty human beings exactly...I said that people who PREFER 3rd edition are shitty human beings.

Furthermore, 3rd edition allows for the most munchkinism and rules-based pixel bitching. Why would you prefer that version of D&D if you aren't in fact a munchkin or a pixel bitching rules lawyer, who as we all know are absolute cunts.


Nice backpedaling.  What!?!

I seriously need to fix my IL Gleichman is in every damn post!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 05:30:34 PM
Quote from: Bill;573733
Obviously a chess player using a board will find it easier to plan ahead moves.

Playing without a board is HARDER.


But *much* easier to playing a non-one dimensional RPG encounter. Few people can correctly play chess blind, fewer yet can correctly play a full featured tactical RPG blind.


Quote from: Bill;573733

I don't play rpg's like a game of chess anyway. Chess is a game of pure logic and math with a tiny dash of poker.


Yes I know, the features of logic, magic and a dash of poker are likely missing in your RPGs.

They are very much part of mine.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 05:32:46 PM
Quote from: Bill;573738
I can solve a math problem in my head, or design a dnd scenario in my head.


I would hope that anyone is capable of those things, but the latter is not playing out a complex non-one dimensional RPG combat in your head.

Doing such a battle correctly is the proper use of the map that I'm talking about.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 19, 2012, 05:34:30 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;573732
Still a really bad, and lazy, fallacy.

In the words of Old Geezer:  "That's the edition I started with, and we still have fun playing, so why spend money on something else if I'm having fun with this?"

Lazy? No...it's efficient. It's interpolating synthetic data from a known set.

I know that if I see a guy wearing a NASCAR hat, that my life won't be enriched by having this individual in it, and can then spend the time that might have otherwise been wasted talking to them, and channel it towards more fruitful endeavors...like sudoku puzzles.

Why do people insist that I have to sit through Eat, Pray, Love in it's entirety to know that it's a selfindulgent piece of shit?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;573732
Seriously, there are plenty of reasons why people would prefer 3e (or any edition) without them being a munchkin asshole. (Edit me: OR a soulless, bureaucrat rules lawyer)

Yeah? Name ONE that you can't get from a less cunt-y edition.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573741
But *much* easier to playing a non-one dimensional RPG encounter. Few people can correctly play chess blind, fewer yet can correctly play a full featured tactical RPG blind.




Yes I know, the features of logic, magic and a dash of poker are likely missing in your RPGs.

They are very much part of mine.




Insults? lets stick to rational debate please.

You don't know anything about my games.

I happen to be quite good at logic, have quick wits, and my games are fun. I know this because the players tell me.

You somehow know my games are lacking in some way because....I disagree with you about maps?


Seriously....I use my creative mind more than a grid, and you think that is in any way more creative for an rpg?    Wow.




What is 'full featured' and 'blind' in an rpg?
I have played hundreds of awesome rpg game sessions with no grid. I play with a grid as well, when players prefer it.
Both work for me. I just think the grid detracts from the fun of the game.
Leads players into 'gamespeak' and 'rulespeak'

Are you saying you can't run a game without a grid?
I bet you can. Did you ever try?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 05:42:10 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573744
I would hope that anyone is capable of those things, but the latter is not playing out a complex non-one dimensional RPG combat in your head.

Doing such a battle correctly is the proper use of the map that I'm talking about.


Hey, I have no problem running a dnd game with no map. I assure you many others do the same.

You really need a map to do a complex combat in your games?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 05:58:59 PM
Quote from: Bill;573752
Insults? lets stick to rational debate please.


It's not a insult when was I was taking you at your word. You specifically said that you're games are not built on that foundation.

Do you wish to retract that statement?


Quote from: Bill;573752

Seriously....I use my creative mind more than a grid, and you think that is in any way more creative for an rpg?    Wow.


I think that true creativity come from dealing with restraints and that the freedom to do anything produces nothing worth doing.

For example I judge a a person who claims to make up pretty pictures in his head as less creative than someone who can make pretty pictures limited to using nothing more than bush, paint and canvas. The latter worked under great limits, and still managed beauty. The former did nothing but claim success.


Quote from: Bill;573752

I have played hundreds of awesome rpg game sessions with no grid.


And I'm certain that your battles were one of three things:

1- simple one-dimensional affairs
2- done in system the ignores line of sight and ranges.
3- that it was flooded in errors of judgement in line of sight and range values.

I would never consider any of the above 'awesome', but understand that others might.

Quote from: Bill;573752

Are you saying you can't run a game without a grid?
I bet you can. Did you ever try?


I have done so as a test to prove that it is possible, just as I've played Chess blindfolded. And I've done the same with sand table micro-armor. In all cases, others tracked the actual positions on a real map and minis (or board, or sand table).

In all cases I was successful. However the conditions of that success made it clear to me that it was an inferior method for something more complex than a chess board- and putting the same constraints on other players would be far too much of a handicap.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 05:59:32 PM
Quote from: Bill;573753
You really need a map to do a complex combat in your games?


Yes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 19, 2012, 06:03:42 PM
Quote from: Bill;573753
Hey, I have no problem running a dnd game with no map. I assure you many others do the same.

You really need a map to do a complex combat in your games?


Complex battle?  What does that actually mean? Complexity means different things to different people. As shown by Gleichman so well without a hint of irony by the way.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 06:10:38 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573762
It's not a insult when was I was taking you at your word. You specifically said that you're games are not built on that foundation.

Do you wish to retract that statement?

No need to retract anything.


I think that true creativity come from dealing with restraints and that the freedom to do anything produces nothing worth doing.

For example I judge a a person who claims to make up pretty pictures in his head as less creative than someone who can make pretty pictures limited to using nothing more than bush, paint and canvas. The latter worked under great limits, and still managed beauty. The former did nothing but claim success.

So if I create a dnd scenario in my head, and run it, then at a later date write it down, and run it, the first run is somehow going to be bad? That's simply not the case.


And I'm certain that your battles were one of three things:

1- simple one-dimensional affairs
2- done in system the ignores line of sight and ranges.
3- that it was flooded in errors of judgement in line of sight and range values.

I would never consider any of the above 'awesome', but understand that others might.

You are correct that using a grid is more precise when ranges and relative positions are calculated (obviously)

But, You are wrong that line of sight and range is ignored. its easy to do that in your head; why ignore it?

I will make an assumption here that the loss of precision without a grid bothers you more than it bothers me.

The main thing I have observed when using a grid that I dislike, is that it promotes gamespeak and metagaming.




I have done so as a test to prove that it is possible, just as I've played Chess blindfolded. And I've done the same with sand table micro-armor. In all cases, others tracked the actual positions on a real map and minis (or board, or sand table).

In all cases I was successful. However the conditions of that success made it clear to me that it was an inferior method for something more complex than a chess board- and putting the same constraints on other players would be far too much of a handicap.


Inferior in precision, but superior for the quality of the game; stricktly my opinion.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 06:15:57 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;573768
Complex battle?  What does that actually mean? Complexity means different things to different people. As shown by Gleichman so well without a hint of irony by the way.


I think he means a tactical battle with many combatants of diverse capabilities in three dimensions with terrain. :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 19, 2012, 06:21:58 PM
Quote from: Bill;573772
I think he means a tactical battle with many combatants of diverse capabilities in three dimensions with terrain. :)


That's no answer, what's the deal? Do you think I'm too stupid for a real answer? Go ahead I asked because I'm curious about what others think about the definition. I do that in my head and until my players say I suck, why change? I am all about "lets have fun". Science is for nerds.:)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 06:23:46 PM
A side note, putting answers inside the quote makes replies more difficult.

Quote from: Bill;573770

So if I create a dnd scenario in my head...


I'll let that an other statements inside the quote drop as I find your final sentence sums up our difference nicely.

Quote from: Bill;573770
Inferior in precision, but superior for the quality of the game; stricktly my opinion.


To me, precision and quality of the game are identical. I cannot have low precision and gain high quality. High Quality demands precision, i.e. that all resolution uses the correct range values and line of sight judgements as objectively verified by everyone at the gaming table using RAW and the map/mins.

Nothing less is acceptable to me, unless I happen to be running system-less.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 06:24:14 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;573780
That's no answer, what's the deal? Do you think I'm too stupid for a real answer? Go ahead I asked because I'm curious about what others think about the definition.


I was being serious; I certainly was not making any judjement about you; I really do not think that way, honest.

Am I missing the point perhaps?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 06:27:56 PM
Quote from: Bill;573772
I think he means a tactical battle with many combatants of diverse capabilities in three dimensions with terrain. :)


That's correct.

Many combatants can vary in range from 20-40 upwards to the 300 (the max I've done without using mass combat abstractions).

In fact in the game we played last Sunday, we had 7 characters on one side, against a force of 23. Terrain was a wild west town with single and double story buildings, corrals, etc. HERO System (5th edition) was the ruleset.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 19, 2012, 06:28:48 PM
Quote from: Bill;573784
I was being serious; I certainly was not making any judjement about you; I really do not think that way, honest.

Am I missing the point perhaps?

Actually I think you were spot on given the context of the question.  See my above post about "fun" hon. :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 19, 2012, 06:44:52 PM
Keeping on the social contract angle, a player is an asshole if he or she violates the social contract willfully, I think the problem people have hear is that 3e players have a different idea of what that social contract is than players of older. This is almost certainly because of the differences in editions.

Older editions need the DM to step in and adjudicate much more so player who mostly play them are more comfortable having the DM fudge rules.

In 3e the d20 system is more playable of the box and situations where RAW clearly is different from RAI and edge-cases are less frequent so players are less comfortable with the rules shifting underneath their feet.

If I recall correctly a lot of 2e splatbooks where not play-tested and had to be managed carefully to avoid breaking the game. So 2e players are more leery of splats

3e splats are about as balanced as 3e core, often more so since both the best and the worst 3e classes are in core. Most 3e DM are very permissive with splats preferring only to ban things if they cause problems in the game. Because of this many 3e players assume everything is in save a few things that are commonly banned and are more likely to be upset if entire splats are banned.

Many 3e players have had experiences where they have made a "wrong" choice at charater generation and spent a lot of game time under-preforming so 3e players tend to think very carefully about they put on their character sheet.

With less options and many fewer wrong choices in their game of choice. older editions players tend to look with suspicion on players that put a great deal of effort into their characters mechanics, and without the responsibility of flagging trap options for other players I suspect that much more 2e era minmaxers were dicks.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 06:45:14 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573783
A side note, putting answers inside the quote makes replies more difficult.



I'll let that an other statements inside the quote drop as I find your final sentence sums up our difference nicely.



To me, precision and quality of the game are identical. I cannot have low precision and gain high quality. High Quality demands precision, i.e. that all resolution uses the correct range values and line of sight judgements as objectively verified by everyone at the gaming table using RAW and the map/mins.

Nothing less is acceptable to me, unless I happen to be running system-less.


Understood, and not unreasonable.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 06:48:24 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;573788
Actually I think you were spot on given the context of the question.  See my above post about "fun" hon. :)


I will try not to be as slow on the uptake in the future :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 19, 2012, 06:49:48 PM
Quote from: Bill;573806
I will try not to be as slow on the uptake in the future :)


*Looks at Bill's avatar*

Good luck with that.

:D ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 06:59:45 PM
Quote from: Bill;573802
Understood, and not unreasonable.


One would think so. But for my troubles here I get labeled OCD, an asperger case, or simply a troll. What can one say?


The real only problem is that players like you and me shouldn't mix at the gaming table. But that's not much of an issue, it's something that takes care of itself in reality.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 19, 2012, 08:15:28 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;573745
Lazy? No...it's efficient. It's interpolating synthetic data from a known set.


No, it's fucking lazy because it's one of the most easily identifiable (with the exception of an ad hominem), usually only used by people who can't back up their point with real arguments.

You do realize that people are using that exact same logic to say that this site is nothing but a bunch of cunts, right?

Quote





Yeah? Name ONE that you can't get from a less cunt-y edition.


I already did.  Because that's what people own already and they have fun with it.

Seriously dude, all you're doing is validating the victim complex of denners and 4vengers and making it harder on the rest of us.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 10:45:20 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573810
One would think so. But for my troubles here I get labeled OCD, an asperger case, or simply a troll. What can one say?


The real only problem is that players like you and me shouldn't mix at the gaming table. But that's not much of an issue, it's something that takes care of itself in reality.


There are people I play dnd with that probably are closer to you than me in preferences. We get along just fine when we play. Keep in mind I do use maps when players desire it. I am quite functional with or without a battlemap. I just happen to prefer not to use one.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 10:48:08 PM
Quote from: Bill;573882
There are people I play dnd with that probably are closer to you than me in preferences. We get along just fine when we play. Keep in mind I do use maps when players desire it. I am quite functional with or without a battlemap. I just happen to prefer not to use one.


I'll accept that.

But it leaves one unbridgeable gap.  You play D&D :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 10:49:51 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573883
I'll accept that.

But it leaves one unbridgeable gap.  You play D&D :)


Just out of curiosity, what rpg's do you like?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 10:51:38 PM
Quote from: Bill;573884
Just out of curiosity, what rpg's do you like?


HERO System (5th Edition), and the one in my Sig.

I haven't found any others that work for me, but some have setting elements to steal from.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 19, 2012, 11:12:34 PM
Quote from: gleichman;573887
HERO System (5th Edition), and the one in my Sig.

I haven't found any others that work for me, but some have setting elements to steal from.


Hero has been one of my favorite systems for many years. Discovered it as Champions and and I am about to play in a 6th edition hero game a month from now.

Age of Heroes I have not come across before.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 19, 2012, 11:17:20 PM
Quote from: Bill;573892
Hero has been one of my favorite systems for many years. Discovered it as Champions and and I am about to play in a 6th edition hero game a month from now.


I'm liking you better.

Sadly 6th Edition is something I had to pass on, too much effort to convert things back to a grid. Did it give the old college try, ran a two-year Morrow Project Campaign with it.


Quote from: Bill;573892

Age of Heroes I have not come across before.


You wouldn't have. Crappy game, very poorly written. I don't think anyone other than my groups could really play it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: LordVreeg;573114
Well, taking this completely seriously and putting any judgement on the backburner, I translate this as "Mist quoted Storm playing the setting/game versus the system in game"
Exactly.  I doubt my views on this are anything but crystal clear; just in case, I will state for the record that I take a very dim view of rules lawyers and/or appeals to the rules as some kind of ultimate authority.  

Quote
I would always expect a GM to have described said issue ahead of time, making expectations clear.  I read this as the GM merely adjudicating what was set into place as the expectation ahead of time.
Knowing that Diplomacy has some major issues, this is something I would certainly go over right after admonishing twinks and CharOp fanatics to put that stuff aside.

Quote
If you are talking about a game and setting where a the use of social skills was not talked about, or a very immature game where an"unbeatable Diplomacy Bonus" could actually be created, then I totally agree with you, it's a Dick Move to change the expectations of the game on players just because you are the GM.
On the other hand, it is a valuable test to verify the attitude of the player.  I full expect players like you, CRKreuger, Benoist, Black Vulmea and the rest of like mind to chuckle and respond "So, not going to happen, then."  In the off, off, off chance you had lost your mind and tried to pull that kind of bullshit in the first place, which is astronomically unlikely anyway.  We would then beging the dialog about re-assigning diplomacy points, and no matter how high you managed to raise it, the best it will do is get you the audience with the king (who would not otherwise grant such to a group of filthy itinerant vagabonds under any circumstances).  Probably a bonus to any requests for also knowing how to talk to a king.

Quote from: LordVreeg;573122
Where here does he say about expectations beforehand?  I really don't  see it.  I am willing to be proven wrong here (as I certainly am not  going to waste my time reading over the whole thread), but I think you  might be projecting your opinion about his GMing.
You are a gentleman and a scholar.

I was pulling that more or less out of the middle of a session where some shitty Denner-type player managed to sneak that shit past me.  Unlikely in the extreme, but it could happen.

Now, the odds of having a shitty player at my table are four to eight times as likely as a player getting a shitty DM, because I have up to eight players at once.  However, I generally trust players not to be shitty, and if they are recommended by a current player, they definitely get the benefit of the doubt.  So it's entirely possible to have a character either sneak in or quietly work on this under the radar.  I don't see the need to check everyone's character sheet at each level; as I said, I generally trust my players unless they give me a reason not to.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573121
Storm is a regular poster on this site who I have no trouble getting along with, you and a number of others have come here (all pretty much in the last month or two) to harp on GD talking points in a forum that you know is hostile to them. This is why I am more critical of you than Storm.
:hatsoff:

Quote
Also, i do not see what storm suggested as sadism. A rougher approach than i would take, but certainly not sadism. Really when you use language like that it is hard to take you seriously.
The unrelenting screeching by the Entitlement Squad is getting pretty old.

Quote from: CRKrueger;573124
Hmm.  Whenever I hear someone talking about gaming using the word "permission", to be honest I'm thinking there's a personal social power issue somewhere that gaming cannot address.

What do you consider DM "permission" vs. DM "whatever else you name DM role functions"?

Why, is being able to accomplish actions without DM "permission" an a priori good?
Good points all around.

Quote from: Kaelik;573125
You are an idiot. People having different opinions than you is not trolling. I'm sorry you feel like your circle jerking was disrupted by people not agreeing to give you a hand job, but no one from TGD (nor Mistborn) has been trolling or disruptive here. Only team bully attack forces responses have been either of those things.
Awwww...  Is widdle sugarkins getting picked on?  Maybe you should take your seat at the children's table where things aren't so rough on your delicate sensibilities.

Quote
And that's the point. Every time you make an accusation of trolling and disruption, I reserve the right to point out that you are actually an idiot who defends sadistic bullies when they are from your "team" and calls honest conversation trolling when it comes from anyone you don't like, because you are a fucking hypocrite.
Every time you use an overwrought term like 'sadism', I reserve the right to point out that you are actually an hysterical hot house flower and might be better off over at tBP where they can provide the 'safe emotional environment' you so desperately need.

Quote
"I don't feel the need to give a heads up...

It's mostly just to see asshole players have a crying jag when their demands that the rules trump my decisions are shattered."
It's not an actual quote if you leave huge sections out of the middle.

Quote
He specifically doesn't warn people because he wants to see them hurt.

That's textbook sadism.
a) That isn't even remotely sadistic, you snivelling whelp.
b) If that kind of thing 'hurts' you, it would be better to spend the time gaming talking with a professional mental health provider instead.

Quote from: Kaelik;573117
Except that Storm was very clear that not only does  he not ever explain this in advance, he specifically doesn't explain it  in advance so that later he can punish people who believed he was  operating under the rules when he didn't tell them otherwise because he  loves to hurt people and make them cry.
I just know you have a quote of me saying that.  Or an admission that you are a stupid goddamn liar.

Quote
Now, if someone on our side of the argument said something that absurd  and extreme, Bedrock Brandon would criticize them for it. But since it's  team no rules that is advocating explicit sadism, he is curiously  silent.

And by curiously I mean hypocritically because he is a hypocrite.
Poor widdle snookums.  If you want sadism, read the Hunger Games.  Otherwise, find a forum that still has training wheels.

Barring that, theRPGsite is as close to a pure meritocracy as you are likely to find.  Clearly, you and your cohort are desperately floundering in this environment because you are forced to defend your position instead of being catered to.  Time to nut up or shut up.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 20, 2012, 12:33:16 AM
Quote from: Bill;573806
I will try not to be as slow on the uptake in the future :)

You are good people Bill.:D

(Gleichman is also but we are oil and water) don't tell him that though he might start thinking his view is right or something even more insane.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 01:30:02 AM
Quote from: Imp;573265
Seriously. Have a sheet, delineate what classes are freely allowed, what classes have campaign restrictions, what classes are not present in the campaign. Hand it out to new players. There you go.
A damn fine idea.  Break it into sections for classes, feats, skills, spells and so forth.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 20, 2012, 01:39:12 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;573922
A damn fine idea.  Break it into sections for classes, feats, skills, spells and so forth.


When I was running Rifts I had a system of colored marks next to the OCC/RCC's that would let players know what they could or couldn't play in the default setting.  Blue for "Playing this will get you Something Extra", Green for "Go ahead", Red for "Ask First", and Black for "No."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 20, 2012, 01:57:00 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;573922
A damn fine idea.  Break it into sections for classes, feats, skills, spells and so forth.


Serious question, doesn't everyone already do that?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 02:15:31 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573741
But *much* easier to playing a non-one dimensional RPG encounter. Few people can correctly play chess blind, fewer yet can correctly play a full featured tactical RPG blind.
That is because few people suffer from all encompassing OCD to the dizzying heights you do.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 20, 2012, 02:16:52 AM
It seems like a great idea on paper, but it's been my experience that nobody reads handouts.

Yes

I know

They don't

Really
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 02:22:28 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;573929
Serious question, doesn't everyone already do that?
I usually play games where it doesn't come up because there aren't extensive lists of contradicting or broken combinations of skills/spells/feats/items/etc.  Problems occasionally arise during play because of a difference in interpretation or expectation, but that is often easily dealt with.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;573924
When I was running Rifts I had a system of  colored marks next to the OCC/RCC's that would let players know what  they could or couldn't play in the default setting.  Blue for "Playing  this will get you Something Extra", Green for "Go ahead", Red for "Ask  First", and Black for "No."
That would would also be helpful.  Hero 5th has coded marks by some powers for the same reason.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 02:23:16 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;573924
When I was running Rifts I had a system of colored marks next to the OCC/RCC's that would let players know what they could or couldn't play in the default setting.  Blue for "Playing this will get you Something Extra", Green for "Go ahead", Red for "Ask First", and Black for "No."
That would would also be helpful.  Hero 5th has coded marks by some powers for the same reason.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Teazia on August 20, 2012, 04:50:59 AM
81 pages on a troll thread? I hope someone got banned...

Or

Ben is trying to bump the pageviews for profit!  In that case, troll away!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 20, 2012, 07:39:06 AM
Quote from: Teazia;573950
81 pages on a troll thread? I hope someone got banned...

Or

Ben is trying to bump the pageviews for profit!  In that case, troll away!


People were just tired of posting on WvFB so they posted here instead.  It's all the same thing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 08:03:37 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573801
Keeping on the social contract angle, a player is an asshole if he or she violates the social contract willfully, I think the problem people have hear is that 3e players have a different idea of what that social contract is than players of older. This is almost certainly because of the differences in editions.

Older editions need the DM to step in and adjudicate much more so player who mostly play them are more comfortable having the DM fudge rules.

In 3e the d20 system is more playable of the box and situations where RAW clearly is different from RAI and edge-cases are less frequent so players are less comfortable with the rules shifting underneath their feet.

If I recall correctly a lot of 2e splatbooks where not play-tested and had to be managed carefully to avoid breaking the game. So 2e players are more leery of splats

3e splats are about as balanced as 3e core, often more so since both the best and the worst 3e classes are in core. Most 3e DM are very permissive with splats preferring only to ban things if they cause problems in the game. Because of this many 3e players assume everything is in save a few things that are commonly banned and are more likely to be upset if entire splats are banned.

Many 3e players have had experiences where they have made a "wrong" choice at charater generation and spent a lot of game time under-preforming so 3e players tend to think very carefully about they put on their character sheet.

With less options and many fewer wrong choices in their game of choice. older editions players tend to look with suspicion on players that put a great deal of effort into their characters mechanics, and without the responsibility of flagging trap options for other players I suspect that much more 2e era minmaxers were dicks.


As hard as it is to imagine, there are some people who just want to play the fucking game without all that mechanical bullshit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 20, 2012, 08:06:19 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;573976
As hard as it is to imagine, there are some people who just want to play the fucking game without all that mechanical bullshit.


I know and game with a lot of 3.x/Pathfinder people like that. These people seem to be the anethema of the CharOp types.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 20, 2012, 08:31:36 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;573976
As hard as it is to imagine, there are some people who just want to play the fucking game without all that mechanical bullshit.


I know a good number of 3.x/PF players who just want to use the character design system to make their character fit their conception. They aren't concerned about using said system to make the character the most effective it can be (as their character conception is not such a character). As long as there aren't any "charop to the max" players at the table with charoped to the max characters, they generally don't even notice their characters aren't "effective".
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: LordVreeg on August 20, 2012, 08:33:23 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;573922
A damn fine idea.  Break it into sections for classes, feats, skills, spells and so forth.


Or, you can, y'know, get all modern and shit and make a wiki.
Just Sayin'.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 08:36:48 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;573976
As hard as it is to imagine, there are some people who just want to play the fucking game without all that mechanical bullshit.


A large number of players like having alot of options for their character. The fact that so many options in 3rd are actualy traps that can cripple your character is indefensible and I don't think anyone is advocating that it should be this way. Most people want a system where people can pick whatever and still have a ok character that's why people from TGD are always talking about class balance.

Let me spell this out one more time.

With comprehensive rules comes complexity, with options comes minmaxing, those who are not prepared to accept that should not play 3e.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 20, 2012, 08:41:48 AM
Quote from: RandallS;573981
I know a good number of 3.x/PF players who just want to use the character design system to make their character fit their conception. They aren't concerned about using said system to make the character the most effective it can be (as their character conception is not such a character). As long as there aren't any "charop to the max" players at the table with charoped to the max characters, they generally don't even notice their characters aren't "effective".


I have never been in a 3e or Pathfinder game where one optimized character dominated play. I have seen that in 2e.

Not saying it doesn't happen (and I did have one player in an online game try to do that, but he didn't notice in my house rule doc that I already plugged the loophole he was trying to exploit), but I think that it's not the norm, and "team play" is much more the norm.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
Quote from: LordVreeg;573983
Or, you can, y'know, get all modern and shit and make a wiki.
Just Sayin'.
Eh? What's that?  You're speaking into my trick ear, sonny...  Now, get off my lawn with your hula hoops and rock 'n roll music and fancy wikis!

:)

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573985
With comprehensive rules comes complexity,  with options comes minmaxing, those who are not prepared to accept that  should not play 3e.
Oh, so now you get to be arbiter of who is and is not worthy to play your precious game.   Nice work, if you can get it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 09:34:09 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573985
With comprehensive rules comes complexity, with options comes minmaxing, those who are not prepared to accept that should not play 3e.
Oh, so now you get to be arbiter of who is and is not worthy to play your precious game.   Nice work, if you can get it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 20, 2012, 09:39:02 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573985
With comprehensive rules comes complexity, with options comes minmaxing, those who are not prepared to accept that should not play 3e.


Or should simply play with players and GMs who do not minmax. Merely playing 3e does not mean you have to allow players with styles of play that do not fit what your GM and group want play in the campaign.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 09:40:53 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;573998
Oh, so now you get to be arbiter of who is and is not worthy to play your precious game.   Nice work, if you can get it.


No he is merely proving that the premise of this thread is correct. 3E attracts the asshole charopper like molassas attracts flies, and if you can't handle the rules wankery required to play, then just step off man.

That about right LM? :rolleyes:
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 10:16:51 AM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;573988
I have never been in a 3e or Pathfinder game where one optimized character dominated play. I have seen that in 2e.

Not saying it doesn't happen (and I did have one player in an online game try to do that, but he didn't notice in my house rule doc that I already plugged the loophole he was trying to exploit), but I think that it's not the norm, and "team play" is much more the norm.


An optimized character can dominate in any version of dnd.

There are many factors that go into this, but it's not really a game version thing.

Its a human behavior thing.


A 1E Dual classed Fighter/Cleric with 18/00 strength, Weapon Specialization, and Psionics is a god compared to 'normal' single classed charcater in 1E.

3E has quite a few ways to make a powerful character.

4E makes it a little harder, but there are powergamer builds in 4E as well.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 10:38:13 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573683

When players complain when you violate this contract they aren't being entitled. They are calling you out for what you are a bully who hides his thinly veiled contempt for his players behind his DM screen.


When you are in my home and I ask you to smoke elsewhere, I am not being a bully.  You are a guest in my house.  I hope you enjoy your stay, and hope you want to come back next week, but I'm not going to let you smoke in my house to keep you happy.  Even though as far as I am concerned you can smoke whatever whenever and as much as you'd like.  Just not in my house.

As above, replace house with game and smoking with disrupting my game.

That's not being a bully, in my view, and you're going to need to establish what makes it so.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 10:40:39 AM
Quote from: RandallS;574002
Or should simply play with players and GMs who do not minmax. Merely playing 3e does not mean you have to allow players with styles of play that do not fit what your GM and group want play in the campaign.


I tend to agree. It's more a social issue than the game systems fault.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 10:42:52 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;573710

Also if the premise is true, then how is it fallacious? Why would you actively seek a haven for shitty gamers if you aren't in fact a shitty gamer?


I actually prefer 3e to any other game system I've tried.  But I do frequently find myself surrounded by fellow fans that I'd rather not associate with...

I like to play 3e under the old-school social contract.  Yes you can be whatever race/class combination you'd like.  Yes you can be whatever class you wish.  No you cannot use your munchkin build you scraped off of some website, and no you cannot introduce xyz splat book to help you realize your 'character concept'.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574003
No he is merely proving that the premise of this thread is correct. 3E attracts the asshole charopper like molassas attracts flies, and if you can't handle the rules wankery required to play, then just step off man.

That about right LM? :rolleyes:

Nice strawman.

Quote from: StormBringer;573998
Oh, so now you get to be arbiter of who is and is not worthy to play your precious game.   Nice work, if you can get it.


No I'm just saying that my opinion is that 3e plays best if people are very well versed in the game. For all that the system is imbalanced I don't think it's a huge problem in most games. Sometimes bad things happen though like fighters trying to melee hydras or wizards casting Planar Binding.

Quote from: RandallS;574002
Or should simply play with players and GMs who do not minmax. Merely playing 3e does not mean you have to allow players with styles of play that do not fit what your GM and group want play in the campaign.


Everyone should be one the same page with what power level the game is at. Bringing a character that vastly overpowered for the game and shoving it in everyones faces is a huge dick move. If someone bring an Incantrix or well built Druid to most games they probably should be punched
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 10:47:22 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574024
I actually prefer 3e to any other game system I've tried.  But I do frequently find myself surrounded by fellow fans that I'd rather not associate with...

I like to play 3e under the old-school social contract.  Yes you can be whatever race/class combination you'd like.  Yes you can be whatever class you wish.  No you cannot use your munchkin build you scraped off of some website, and no you cannot introduce xyz splat book to help you realize your 'character concept'.


That sounds reasonable.

How do you handle race class combos that clash with other players, or with the setting?

Those issues are manageable, generally, but can be tricky.

I only ask because you are offering free choice.

Like if you have a campaign with a 'Thieves guild theme' and one player wants a classic lawful good paladin.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 10:50:48 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573801

3e splats are about as balanced as 3e core, often more so since both the best and the worst 3e classes are in core.


You'll have to qualify that, because the entire realm of '3e splats' has yet to be measured by anyone I've met.  There are thousands of options that were introduced under the OGL.  I'm certain that some of them are balanced better than the core just as I am certain that some of them are not.

Maybe you meant the WotC splat?

I remember back in my Earthdawn days there was some kind of netbook of character options that my players really, really, really wanted me to permit.  It was essentially character god mode.  I view a lot of splat through that exact same lens - which is one of the reasons I like Paizo's take on 3e.  Less freelancing...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 10:52:50 AM
Quote from: gleichman;573810
One would think so. But for my troubles here I get labeled OCD, an asperger case, or simply a troll. What can one say?


I'm new here and so my judgement is limited, but maybe you could stop being so much of a punching bag?  Many of your posts that I've seen are led off by stating how many HPs of damage the last poster did to you in some fashion or another.  It makes it hard for me to take the rest of what you say seriously...

Just my take on it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 10:53:39 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573985
Let me spell this out one more time.

With comprehensive rules comes complexity, with options comes minmaxing, those who are not prepared to accept that should not play 3e.


Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574025
Nice strawman.


What strawman would that be? 3E comes with options. Options comes with minmaxing. Thus, be prepared to minmax when playing 3E.

Those were your words no? So if by your own admission 3E favors minmaxers, and minmaxers are seen as assholes by those that don't care for that stuff, 3E is a game favored by whom again?  Assholes.

Now if what you are trying to convey is that 3E can be played without having to minmax I would agree. Your statement above does little to support that position.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 11:00:13 AM
Quote from: Bill;574026
That sounds reasonable.

How do you handle race class combos that clash with other players, or with the setting?

Those issues are manageable, generally, but can be tricky.

I only ask because you are offering free choice.

Like if you have a campaign with a 'Thieves guild theme' and one player wants a classic lawful good paladin.


I'll either lean on that one player to change their minds, or bring it back to the group as a whole.  Depends on how much work I want to do to keep that particular player.

Same things goes for alignment choice at my table, by the way.  And class duplication.

"Jim, you have a really cool idea there with your Orc cultist, but I think we'd better shelve it for the next campaign.  Kelli's Elf Pally is going to spank him before you get out of the tavern..."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 11:02:40 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574035
"Jim, you have a really cool idea there with your Orc cultist, but I think we'd better shelve it for the next campaign.  Kelli's Elf Pally is going to spank him before you get out of the tavern..."


:rotfl:

Perhaps the orc is into that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 11:02:54 AM
Quote from: Bill;574022
I tend to agree. It's more a social issue than the game systems fault.


I feel it's a game design issue., and it was one that I identified immediately when I brought 3.0 upon its first release. The thing is, it's really not that big of a deal unless you object to it as a matter of personal style.

There's a number of ways of dealing with the issue.

As noted by others, don't min/max: In practice I wonder how people manage this.

Do they intentionally select weak options?

In that case they are just reversing the goal of the process, not really changing it. They are in-effect doing exactly what the CharOP player does, just in a contrary way. Seems like they are more interested in proving a point than anything else.

Do they select only character appropriate options now matter the outcome?

I think this is want most people would say they do. However this will produce random levels of effectiveness for the typical adventuring group as some in-character choices are better than other in-character choices.

It also requires characters to ignore what experience with the in-game reality tells them. A trained warrior was told by his teachers not to bring a knife (as his primary weapon) to a sword fight, and that the Cleave combat styles offers advantages X and Y...

Is he to ignore this? Is it even reasonable from a IC PoV?

For anyone who considers the game system as a stand-in for the physics and reality of the setting- this option should break immersion (almost no matter how the individual defines it.

Adjust it on the GM side

This IMO is the best way of handling things. Basically ignore it and roll the dice.

Be it sandbox or another methods, players (and GMs) tend to seek out by (one means or the other) the more interesting and exciting battles. Not too easy, not too difficult. It seems to me that one just lets this process flow naturally, allowing the players and/or GM to find suitable foes for whatever degree of min/maxing has been done.

Anything else is but an overreaction to perceived problem, often forcing solutions worse than what they are trying to solve.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 11:02:56 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574035
I'll either lean on that one player to change their minds, or bring it back to the group as a whole.  Depends on how much work I want to do to keep that particular player.

Same things goes for alignment choice at my table, by the way.  And class duplication.

"Jim, you have a really cool idea there with your Orc cultist, but I think we'd better shelve it for the next campaign.  Kelli's Elf Pally is going to spank him before you get out of the tavern..."


Can we at least watch the Paladin spank the Orc before the orc gets shelved?
You don't see that every day.....

Who knows...maybe that is a good way to convert cultists from evil to good....
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 11:04:08 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574031
What strawman would that be? 3E comes with options. Options comes with minmaxing. Thus, be prepared to minmax when playing 3E.

Those were your words no? So if by your own admission 3E favors minmaxers, and minmaxers are seen as assholes by those that don't care for that stuff, 3E is a game favored by whom again?  Assholes.

Now if what you are trying to convey is that 3E can be played without having to minmax I would agree. Your statement above does little to support that position.


FWIW, I see this as a non-strawman as well.  Either the premise holds true or it doesn't.  If minmax is required to play 3e, then everyone playing 3e will minmax.  If minmax is negative, then 3e will be filled with that negativity.

That's as on-target as it gets, I think.

Now I disagree that it is impossible to play a non-optimized character, even though the Monster Manual has Challenge Ratings.  I believe it is entirely possible to tailor an encounter around the strength of the party and still have an enjoyable game.  In fact, I believe one can even do this with modules.

Hint - I have done it.  :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 11:04:50 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574028
You'll have to qualify that, because the entire realm of '3e splats' has yet to be measured by anyone I've met.  There are thousands of options that were introduced under the OGL.  I'm certain that some of them are balanced better than the core just as I am certain that some of them are not.

Maybe you meant the WotC splat?

I remember back in my Earthdawn days there was some kind of netbook of character options that my players really, really, really wanted me to permit.  It was essentially character god mode.  I view a lot of splat through that exact same lens - which is one of the reasons I like Paizo's take on 3e.  Less freelancing...


I'm talking about WotC stuff, I make not guarantees about 3rd party. In an out of the Core books there are things that kinda need the banhammer the top offenders are Polymorph and Planar Binding and those are in core. In genral be careful with the Druid class even without minmaxing it can be to good for many games. If splats break 3e it's usually when minmaxers stack a lot of things that probably shouldn't stack with each-other like charge multipliers. A good rule is to be more permissive with non-casters and be willing to ban spells that you find are a problem at the table.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 11:06:46 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574030
I'm new here and so my judgement is limited, but maybe you could stop being so much of a punching bag?


If people aren't called out on their stupid behavior, they'll never change.

Now mind, I can't change them with anything I say. But I'm hoping that perhaps one of their friends and/or other posters will point out to them "you know, are you being an ass here...".

I doubt it will happen due to the nature of this place. But I can try.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 11:07:46 AM
Quote from: gleichman;574039
I feel it's a game design issue., and it was one that I identified immediately when I brought 3.0 upon its first release. The thing is, it's really not that big of a deal unless you object to it as a matter of personal style.

There's a number of ways of dealing with the issue.

As noted by others, don't min/max: In practice I wonder how people manage this.

Do they intentionally select weak options?

In that case they are just reversing the goal of the process, not really changing it. They are in-effect doing exactly what the CharOP player does, just in a contrary way. Seems like they are more interested in proving a point than anything else.

Do they select only character appropriate options now matter the outcome?

I think this is want most people would say they do. However this will produce random levels of effectiveness for the typical adventuring group as some in-character choices are better than other in-character choices.

It also requires characters to ignore what experience with the in-game reality tells them. A trained warrior was told by his teachers not to bring a knife (as his primary weapon) to a sword fight, and that the Cleave combat styles offers advantages X and Y...

Is he to ignore this? Is it even reasonable from a IC PoV?

For anyone who considers the game system as a stand-in for the physics and reality of the setting- this option should break immersion (almost no matter how the individual defines it.

Adjust it on the GM side

This IMO is the best way of handling things. Basically ignore it and roll the dice.

Be it sandbox or another methods, players (and GMs) tend to seek out by (one means or the other) the more interesting and exciting battles. Not too easy, not too difficult. It seems to me that one just lets this process flow naturally, allowing the players and/or GM to find suitable foes for whatever degree of min/maxing has been done.

Anything else is but an overreaction to perceived problem, often forcing solutions worse than what they are trying to solve.


I believe that min maxing is only a problem when one character is effectively useless compared to another. And, in addition, if any of the players care about the inbalance. Some do, some don't.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 11:10:29 AM
Quote from: Bill;574040
Can we at least watch the Paladin spank the Orc before the orc gets shelved?
You don't see that every day.....

Who knows...maybe that is a good way to convert cultists from evil to good....


Because it takes SO LONG to roll up a character in 3e, even using PCGen - no.

:)

Now if it was WEG D6 or something, sure.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 11:12:48 AM
Quote from: gleichman;574044
If people aren't called out on their stupid behavior, they'll never change.

Now mind, I can't change them with anything I say. But I'm hoping that perhaps one of their friends and/or other posters will point out to them "you know, are you being an ass here...".

I doubt it will happen due to the nature of this place. But I can try.


Yeah, and I get that, but the only reason to keep at it would be for your own entertainment.  Because it comes at the cost of people reading what you have to say on its own merits.

For instance, it might be possible to lead by example as well.

Anyway, enough said, just thought I'd share the perspective.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574041
FWIW, I see this as a non-strawman as well.  Either the premise holds true or it doesn't.  If minmax is required to play 3e, then everyone playing 3e will minmax.  If minmax is negative, then 3e will be filled with that negativity.

That's as on-target as it gets, I think.

Now I disagree that it is impossible to play a non-optimized character, even though the Monster Manual has Challenge Ratings.  I believe it is entirely possible to tailor an encounter around the strength of the party and still have an enjoyable game.  In fact, I believe one can even do this with modules.

Hint - I have done it.  :)


Well, the MM and indeed CRs in general, assume a party of Tordek,Mialee,Jozan, and Lidda at the appropriate levels. Add in stuff from splats more powerful than what these iconics have and the CRs start to crumble fairly fast. I have enjoyed 3E games without worrying about CRs much at all.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 11:37:45 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;573910
You are good people Bill.:D

(Gleichman is also but we are oil and water) don't tell him that though he might start thinking his view is right or something even more insane.


Thanks!


(Gleichman allready knows he is right:)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 11:45:06 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574003
No he is merely proving that the premise of this thread is correct. 3E attracts the asshole charopper like molassas attracts flies, and if you can't handle the rules wankery required to play, then just step off man.

That about right LM? :rolleyes:
Sounds about right to me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 11:48:49 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;574060
Sounds about right to me.


I'm still waiting on the logic that backs up the 'strawman' claim from LM. Its funny how often bullshit buzzwords get tossed around without their meaning even being considered.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 11:49:53 AM
Quote from: gleichman;574044
If people aren't called out on their stupid behavior, they'll never change.

Now mind, I can't change them with anything I say. But I'm hoping that perhaps one of their friends and/or other posters will point out to them "you know, are you being an ass here...".

I doubt it will happen due to the nature of this place. But I can try.
Well, it's never worked with you, but let's try one more time anyway.

"You know, you are being an ass here."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Imperator on August 20, 2012, 11:53:31 AM
Wow, Ben here is trolling harder than the trolls. Kudos to Bill for being an example, anyway.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 12:00:56 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574063
I'm still waiting on the logic that backs up the 'strawman' claim from LM. Its funny how often bullshit buzzwords get tossed around without their meaning even being considered.
No kidding.  I am hoping he gets past the strawman chapter in his informal logic book sometime this week.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 12:03:51 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574049
Well, the MM and indeed CRs in general, assume a party of Tordek,Mialee,Jozan, and Lidda at the appropriate levels. Add in stuff from splats more powerful than what these iconics have and the CRs start to crumble fairly fast. I have enjoyed 3E games without worrying about CRs much at all.


I'm not so sure about that. I've seen alot of unoptimized PCs torn limb from by a monsters full atack. (I warned you about closet trolls bro. I told you dog.) I've heard that this is a problem with alot of published adveters. Everything is going fine mostly the PCs are fighting humanoids then sudenly half the party is eaten by a Behir.

On the problem of minmaxing their is an asshole and non-asshole way of solving it.

Non-Asshole
   DM: Lord Mistborn I respet you as a person but your evoker is doing too much damage.
   Me: ^_^' Yeah Arcane Thesis was a bridge to far in this campain I'll switch it to another feat.

Asshole
  DM: Red Dragon.
  Me: Drat
  DM: Red Dragon specifically targets me the one person who can not damage it, ignoring the other PCs flying off only when my character is dead.  
  Me: What
  DM: I done showed that dirty minmaxer, I done showed him.
  Me: please stop masturbating at the table.
Edit
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574063
I'm still waiting on the logic that backs up the 'strawman' claim from LM. Its funny how often bullshit buzzwords get tossed around without their meaning even being considered.

If position you are responding to is radically different to my position and the TGD folks position or anyone else's position. I assume it is a strawman.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 12:19:38 PM
Quote from: Bill;574045
I believe that min maxing is only a problem when one character is effectively useless compared to another. And, in addition, if any of the players care about the inbalance. Some do, some don't.

I have a few thoughts about that...

First, we have to note that that IC play doesn't require that the player should completely avoid min/maxing. The system represents in-game reality. and avoiding the selection of a effective career path (i.e. the advice of his trainers at least) means that the character has chosen IC to be less effective than he could. The player thus has little reason and certainly no right to complain when other characters (who do follow their trainer's advice and world experience to be the best they can be) overshadow his.


Second, the issue of being overshadowed doesn't exist IC, it's is as much a meta-game concern as anything the min/max player is being (perhaps unjustly) accused of.

In-Game
Jason: "Men of the Argo! Hercules has decided to join our quest! By the gods nothing will stop us now!



Meta-Game
Jason's Player: Dang it, Todd and his freaking Hercules. He's going to overshadow the whole group.



Given that the people I see complaining most about min/maxing is the "IC all the time" crowd, their inability to see the above... hypocrisy (strong word but I can't think of a better word here) is frankly a bit amazing.


Lastly, due to my own game style perhaps, I'm amazed that anyone would care if one character overshadows everyone. This is something that's part of the source material for RPGs for like forever.

To pick but one example, the Fellowship in Lord of the Rings varied vastly in experience and capability. Any style that values simulation should embrace such differences.

Party Balance is IMO not only impossible in truth, it's a rainbow that will lead you to nothing but heartache.


As a side note, Age of Heroes embraces and even enforces group imbalance in its game design.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 12:19:54 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574074
On the problem of minmaxing their is an asshole and non-asshole way of solving it.
Of course, you could also entirely avoid the problem by not being a min-maxing CharOp asshole in the first place.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 12:22:25 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574074


On the problem of minmaxing their is an asshole and non-asshole way of solving it.

Non-Asshole
   DM: Lord Mistborn I respet you as a person but your evoker is doing too much damage.
   Me: ^_^' Yeah Arcane Thesis was a bridge to far in this campain I'll switch it to another feat.


This is true.  Sometimes, however, your example isn't reality.  Sometimes it goes like so:

Quote

   DM: (minmaxer) I respet you as a person but your evoker is doing too much damage.
   (minmaxer): What the fuck, man?  Is this a magical tea party or is this a game?  We all play by the same rules, right?  It's not my fault that these other assholes can't make a character to save their asses, and it also isn't my fault if YOU can't come up with a decent encounter.  Fuck you guys, deal with it or I quit.


The theme of the thread and the original point is that 3e seems to attract more of the latter.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 12:23:53 PM
Lord Mistborn:

Quote
  DM: (minmaxer) I respet you as a person but your evoker is doing too much damage.
   (minmaxer): What the fuck, man?  Is this a magical tea party or is this a game?  We all play by the same rules, right?  It's not my fault that these other assholes can't make a character to save their asses, and it also isn't my fault if YOU can't come up with a decent encounter.  Fuck you guys, deal with it or I quit.

Is the minmaxer being a dick here, in your opinion?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 12:28:28 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574089
I have a few thoughts about that...

First, we have to note that that IC play doesn't require that the player should completely avoid min/maxing. The system represents in-game reality. and avoiding the selection of a effective career path (i.e. the advice of his trainers at least) means that the character has chosen IC to be less effective than he could. The player thus has little reason and certainly no right to complain when other characters (who do follow their trainer's advice and world experience to be the best they can be) overshadow his.


Second, the issue of being overshadowed doesn't exist IC, it's is as much a meta-game concern as anything the min/max player is being (perhaps unjustly) accused of.

In-Game
Jason: "Men of the Argo! Hercules has decided to join our quest! By the gods nothing will stop us now!



Meta-Game
Jason's Player: Dang it, Todd and his freaking Hercules. He's going to overshadow the whole group.



Given that the people I see complaining most about min/maxing is the "IC all the time" crowd, their inability to see the above... hypocrisy (strong word but I can't think of a better word here) is frankly a bit amazing.


Lastly, due to my own game style perhaps, I'm amazed that anyone would care if one character overshadows everyone. This is something that's part of the source material for RPGs for like forever.

To pick but one example, the Fellowship in Lord of the Rings varied vastly in experience and capability. Any style that values simulation should embrace such differences.

Party Balance is IMO not only impossible in truth, it's a rainbow that will lead you to nothing but heartache.


As a side note, Age of Heroes embraces and even enforces group imbalance in its game design.


An in character fighter would feel inadequate with Hercules around. Human nature. Sure, its great when Herc smashes the enemy, but all the tales will be of Hercules, not 'the little guy holding Hercs laundry' and all the women will go for Herc.

Reading Lord of the rings is different than playing it.

Who gets to be Gandalf? and who has to play a halfling?

Lets play in the Dr. Who universe. One player can be a Time Lord, and the other a sidekick. Sure, it can work with good roleplayers, but most people want to be Gandalf or Hercules.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574074
If position you are responding to is radically different to my position and the TGD folks position or anyone else's position. I assume it is a strawman.


Priceless. ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 12:32:09 PM
An example of someone not being a dick (using the 5e playtest from this past Saturday):

Player (playing the cleric): Man, this radiant lance is pretty powerful.  Why do I even have a mace?
Me (DM): Yeah it does seem a bit too much.  You have a ranged attack just about as powerful as a fighter and you get to cast spells to boot.
Player 2 (playing the mage): It's sort of like my MM spell.  I know my MM is an autohit, but it does 1/2 the damage.
Me: Most creatures have an AC of 11-12, and with your bonuses to hit, you're hitting 3/4 of the time anyway with radiant lance
Player 1: It just doesn't feel right to seem like I have the most powerful guy here
Me: Thoughts?  I'd suggest changing damage from 1d8 to 1d6 or so.
Player 2: That seems fair
Player 1: Ok, I'm good with that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 12:33:58 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574089

Lastly, due to my own game style perhaps, I'm amazed that anyone would care if one character overshadows everyone. This is something that's part of the source material for RPGs for like forever.


I once invited a guy from work to come over and GM a Star Wars session for my regular group.  He had a rep for being really good, with lots of neat stories and whatnot, so I thought we all might learn something.

We spent four hours of watching him talk to himself.  Whatever our characters had, his setting characters had more of, and better, and he engineered situations to allow him to demonstrate it.

In light of my experiences, I am amazed you can't relate.  You, sir, are blessed to have never experienced it.  That said, you probably aren't in a position to advocate against those that have.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 12:35:48 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574089

Given that the people I see complaining most about min/maxing is the "IC all the time" crowd, their inability to see the above... hypocrisy (strong word but I can't think of a better word here) is frankly a bit amazing.

 You have no Idea. They have also yet to convince me they don't have a deep burning hatred for Fighters.

Do you have any Idea how disheartening it is to see the DM rip up the character sheet of player next to me for minmaxing while I am the most minmaxed as hell person at the table and not being called on it.

I swear I could bring a minmaxed wizard to most of the games run by the 3e people here and they wouldn't even notice.

Quote from: gleichman;574089
As a side note, Age of Heroes embraces and even enforces group imbalance in its game design.

note to self: do not play Age of Heroes
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: Bill;574100

Reading Lord of the rings is different than playing it.

Who gets to be Gandalf? and who has to play a halfling?


In fact most (though not all) RPGs solve this problem during character creation.  A character of the same level (or created with the same number of points) is intended to be roughly equivalent in usefulness with his peers.  That, in fact, is the entire point of levels in the first place.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 12:39:03 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574107

I swear I could bring a minmaxed wizard to most of the games run by the 3e people here and they wouldn't even notice.


Yeah, you're probably right.  If you didn't dip into other classes or cherry-pick feats from obscure splat, I certainly wouldn't.

Although, I'm also pretty confident that I can challenge a wizard who doesn't do those things, too.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 12:41:52 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574096
Lord Mistborn:
Is the minmaxer being a dick here, in your opinion?


Unless other people are acting in bad faith you're suposed to try to stay in the same ballpark as the rest of the party. This goes double for damage, nothing pisses off people more the pushing damage numbers out of the DMs comfort zone. Throwing a hissy fit after somthing has been banned for actualy causing problems in-game isn't cool either.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 12:43:38 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574109
Yeah, you're probably right.  If you didn't dip into other classes or cherry-pick feats from obscure splat, I certainly wouldn't.

Although, I'm also pretty confident that I can challenge a wizard who doesn't do those things, too.


Please don't. I've found keeping the party alive after the DM has nerfed everyone else is hard enough.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 12:57:31 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574110
Unless other people are acting in bad faith you're suposed to try to stay in the same ballpark as the rest of the party. This goes double for damage, nothing pisses off people more the pushing damage numbers out of the DMs comfort zone. Throwing a hissy fit after somthing has been banned for actualy causing problems in-game isn't cool either.

OK.

How about this now:

Quote
DM: You are brought in the presence of the King. He wants you to bring back his daughter. He is short on resources, and fears the reaction of the populace if the news of the Crown Princess missing came to be known. You will have to use your own resources to go to the Pictland and bring her back. You will be handsomely rewarded for your troubles and declared Crown heroes upon your return.
(minmaxer): OK wait. I got... +12, plus skill focus, plus... mmm... Hey (to other player) your character is a bard? Sing us a song of encouragement and accord here... mmm so that's another +3.... ok. I got a +41 Diplomacy here. I ask the King to give us a war galley to save his daughter. He has no choice.
DM: (to minmaxer) Hm. Well, Diplomacy doesn't work as mind control. At best it makes the king your friend, disposed to help, but it doesn't change the political situation or his lack of resources, and other priorities in the slightest. He is saddened to have to refuse your demand. Plus... I respect you as a player man, but your character being fudged with a +41 Diplomacy at this table of level 5 characters? That's a bit too much don't you think?
(minmaxer): What the fuck, man? Is this a magical tea party or is this a game? We all play by the same rules, right? It's not my fault that these other assholes can't make a character to save their asses, and it also isn't my fault if YOU can't come up with a decent counter to my +41 diplomacy. Fuck you guys, deal with it or I quit. What's the DC now?
DM: Eight million.

Who's being a dick here?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 12:58:52 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574107
Do you have any Idea how disheartening it is to see the DM rip up the character sheet of player next to me for minmaxing while I am the most minmaxed as hell person at the table and not being called on it.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574111
Please don't. I've found keeping the party alive after the DM has nerfed everyone else is hard enough.
Holy shit, it isn't difficult.

Don't game with assholes.

99% of your problems are solved.  Although your authourity issues are something you will need to take up separately.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 01:04:19 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574117
Don't game with assholes.



But....but.... its a 3E game and they sort of attract those sorts of players. :p


Oh ,yeah and according to LM, your solution is a strawman. (see my sig.)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 01:13:30 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574116
OK.

How about this now:

DM: You are brought in the presence of the King. He wants you to bring back his daughter. He is short on resources, and fears the reaction of the populace if the news of the Crown Princess missing came to be known. You will have to use your own resources to go to the Pictland land bring her back. You will be handsomely rewarded for your troubles and declared Crown heroes upon your return.
(minmaxer): OK wait. I got... +12, plus skill focus, plus... mmm... Hey (to other player) your character is a bard? Sing us a song of encouragement and accord here... mmm so that's another +3.... ok. I got a +41 Diplomacy here. I ask the King to give us a war galley to save his daughter. He has no choice.
DM: (to minmaxer) Hm. Well, Diplomacy doesn't work as mind control. At best it makes the king your friend, disposed to help, but it doesn't change the political situation or his lack of resources, and other priorities in the slightest. He is saddened to have to refuse your demand. Plus... I respect you as a player man, but your character being fudged with a +41 Diplomacy at this table of level 5 characters? That's a bit too much don't you think?
(minmaxer): What the fuck, man? Is this a magical tea party or is this a game? We all play by the same rules, right? It's not my fault that these other assholes can't make a character to save their asses, and it also isn't my fault if YOU can't come up with a decent counter to my +41 diplomacy. Fuck you guys, deal with it or I quit. What's the DC now?
DM: Eight million

Who's being a dick here?


Uh the minmaxer is wrong about the dimplmacy rules here now that I think about it. If remember right Diplomacy rules are "We know you're gonna MTP social stuff most of the time but if you wan't to resolve it with dice use the diplomacy skill, also here's a list of DCs to improve NPC reactions."
If they get the Kings attitude to helpful he probably is willing to lend a ship maybe not his ship but a ship. I think most players know that using the Diplomacy rules is contingent on them not being abused. I've never seen a Diplomancer in an actual game myself.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 01:14:53 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574116
Who's being a dick here?
Exactly.  As I mentioned, sometimes players will sneak stuff in under the radar, and I don't like to micro-manage everyone's character sheet before, during and after every session.  I prefer to have a level of trust where they understand a) the characters don't need to be superheroes to merely survive because I don't run games like that, and b) the players are there to have fun and socialize, not 'win' or 'have the best character' in order to show everyone else up.

Additionally, there is some responsibility from the players to discuss their character with the GM beforehand as well.  If a player really wants to have a diplomat 'face' character, it is their responsibility to find out how the GM handles that kind of thing instead of just dumping ridiculous amounts of points into Diplomacy and spending all their WBL on Charisma and Diplomacy enhancing items.

The only players that demand the primacy of the rules are the ones that twist and abuse the rules for their own benefit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 01:18:31 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574121
Uh the minmaxer is wrong about the dimplmacy rules here now that I think about it. If remember right Diplomacy rules are "We know you're gonna MTP social stuff most of the time but if you wan't to resolve it with dice use the diplomacy skill, also here's a list of DCs to improve NPC reactions."
If they get the Kings attitude to helpful he probably is willing to lend a ship maybe not his ship but a ship. I think most players know that using the Diplomacy rules is contingent on them not being abused. I've never seen a Diplomancer in an actual game myself.


Sorry, mate, but you aren't answering my question. Who's being a dick in that example?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 01:20:14 PM
Quote from: Bill;574100
An in character fighter would feel inadequate with Hercules around. Human nature.


Humans are more complex and varied than that. I'm sure that there are those who have played alongside, say Michael Jordan or fought next to Audie Murphy who were honored to have done so even if they scored no points or did anything other than fire a rifle in the general direction of the enemy.

But even if my character has adequacy issues, there's a great deal of fun and spotlight time exploring that. Hercules may get more battle glories, but that only means that I need to seek out other ways to shine.


Quote from: Bill;574100

Reading Lord of the rings is different than playing it.


From a overview (i.e. a written account of the outcome of game events), one would be hard pressed to see a difference in the campaigns I've been part of. Well,the writing wouldn't be as good.


Quote from: Bill;574100

Who gets to be Gandalf? and who has to play a halfling?


Whoever wanted to.

I've (and most people at the table) have played the equivalent of one or the other at various times. Either by choice (Say a Superhero campaign in HERO, which front loads the power difference during character creation/selection), or by the results of their game play (in Age of Heroes in which the disparity arises as the campaign is played).

Been doing things this way for decades, and I think I've only had one player miss the point and complain.

I could give tons of examples of how this works, but I don't think you need those. You likely can well imagine it, but have been stuck with groups that reject the idea. A meta-plane decision that I feel is even more destructive than anything CharOP brings to the table.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 20, 2012, 01:22:45 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574094
The theme of the thread and the original point is that 3e seems to attract more of the latter.


Based on what?  

If 3rd edition has broad appeal and more people play it than any other version (not that I'm saying they do - just making a hypothetical), we would expect that it has more of every type of player.  More doctors, more lawyers, more nice people, more assholes, etc.  Now, does it have a higher PERCENTAGE?  

I don't think so.  Most of the people I've played with have been good people.  The worst power gamer (even though he was a nice guy) was real old-school.  He'd been playing 1st edition since the early days (he was also much older than I).  The worst player was 16 years old, and I can't blame 3rd edition for making him an asshole.  He was the kind of guy that wanted to be a ninja and do his own thing away from the party - but if 6 of the 7 party members are doing one thing, they get 6x more time to talk to me than the guy by himself - so that didn't make him very happy.  We mostly got him straightened out.  

I've played 3rd edition with a lot of people.  Very few are people that I'd consider assholes.  So no, I don't think 3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes.  That hasn't been my experience, anyway.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574105

In light of my experiences, I am amazed you can't relate.  You, sir, are blessed to have never experienced it.  That said, you probably aren't in a position to advocate against those that have.


Your experience was with a bad GM, I fail to see how that relates in any way to my post you were replying to (which was all about interactions between the players).

In addition. I fail to see why one bad experience would cause one to give up when there are examples out of there of those who have succeeded. Giving up is easy, I'll grant you that. But it fails to build character or much of anything else.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 01:24:09 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574117
Don't game with assholes.


The problem is this sort of frothing rage at any hint of minmaxing creates assholes.

If people are advocating views that in my experience creates assholes. I feel the need to chime in that people are enabling assholes.

I do not have a problem with people who want to play the game at a lower power level, I expect them to act in good faith and treat their players like adults.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 20, 2012, 01:27:52 PM
Balance is always contentious among gamers in my experience. I think there isn't one single standard of it that works for everyone. To some players, the possibility of imbalance in games is important and part of the fun, for others imbalance creates problems. I also think there are a number of games in more of a middle zone where a certain level of imbalance is desirable but not to the point of having enormous disparities throughout the game. Add to that disagreements over what constitutes imbalance.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574123
Sorry, mate, but you aren't answering my question. Who's being a dick in that example?


I thought that was obvious. The player is being a dick. He is demanding that his Diplomacy skill do something that it doesn’t actually do and pretending it's the rules.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 01:30:21 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574121
If they get the Kings attitude to helpful he probably is willing to lend a ship maybe not his ship but a ship.
That's where problems between players and GMs start. You are making an assumption here without knowing all the ins and outs of the situation. Diplomacy is not mind control. When you change the attitude of an NPC to helpful, it means exactly that: the NPC is friendly, helpful, will help you as best he can, and protect you if need be. If the Lawful Good King is short on resources, that even the loss of one ship would mean more trouble, more danger, perhaps even more deaths for his people, that he specifically pointed out that he couldn't afford to help you get there (because of a war going on, because of a drought, because every ship needs to get out every day fishing just in case they might catch something, anything to feed the population while the crisis is being resolved), then he will certainly feel guilty, sad, that he cannot help you in this way, but he will still refuse.

So basically you are making an assumption as a player without knowing all the ins and outs of a situation. If the GM tells you after you raised his attitude to helpful "the king is saddened, explains that he cannot afford to let even one ship miss from the harbor at this time", and you react with "WTF? The king SHOULD be willing to give us a ship! Perhaps not HIS ship, but ANY ship! WTF is wrong with you? Bad DM!" Then in my mind you are clearly at fault as a player.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 01:31:30 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574127
The problem is this sort of frothing rage at any hint of minmaxing creates assholes.
No, not 'any hint'.  Blatant CharOp assholery.  I don't expect players to pass up a +5 sword in a treasure pile.  I do expect them to assign skill points reasonably, understand that skills are not magical abilities, and not scatter ten levels across a half dozen or more classes/prestige classes.  Dropping a few extra points into Diplomacy is fine, if you want to make sure you can get that success when you really need it.  Thinking the King in the previous example owes you a ship because your score is high enough is pure rules-lawyering CharOp assholery.

None of this is a problem in pre-3.x versions, of course, but that brings us back to the premise of this thread, doesn't it?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574130
I thought that was obvious. The player is being a dick. He is demanding that his Diplomacy skill do something that it doesn’t actually do and pretending it's the rules.


And also the fact that he's blatantly attempting to break the game and that the DM tried to be diplomatic but he basically told him to fuck off, which prompted the response to the question "What is the DC?" ... "Eight million." Maybe Storm isn't such an asshole GM after all?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 01:36:24 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574131
That's where problems between players and GMs start. You are making an assumption here without knowing all the ins and outs of the situation. Diplomacy is not mind control. When you change the attitude of an NPC to helpful, it means exactly that: the NPC is friendly, helpful, will help you as best he can, and protect you if need be. If the Lawful Good King is short on resources, that even the loss of one ship would mean more trouble, more danger, perhaps even more deaths for his people, that he specifically pointed out that he couldn't afford to help you get there (because of a war going on, because of a drought, because every ship needs to get out every day fishing just in case they might catch something, anything to feed the population while the crisis is being resolved), then he will certainly feel guilty, sad, that he cannot help you in this way, but he will still refuse.


My bad. Obviously if the king can't spare any ships the king can't spare any ships and your diplomacy roll won't change that. I was more hung up on the you demand his personal ship part of the example so I missed "the king can't spare any ships".
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 01:37:51 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574136
My bad. Obviously if the king can't spare any ships the king can't spare any ships and your diplomacy roll won't change that. I was more hung up on the you demand his personal ship part of the example so I missed "the king can't spare any ships".


OK Fair enough.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 01:38:37 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574134
And also the fact that he's blatantly attempting to break the game and that the DM tried to be diplomatic but he basically told him to fuck off, which prompted the response to the question "What is the DC?" ... "Eight million." Maybe Storm isn't such an asshole GM after all?
:hatsoff:

There was also a running gag in my old group where the Thief would attempt to hear noise in an (unbeknownst to us) empty room and 'succeed' on the roll.  The DM would always say "You hear a faint nibbling of cheese".
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 01:45:34 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574138
:hatsoff:

There was also a running gag in my old group where the Thief would attempt to hear noise in an (unbeknownst to us) empty room and 'succeed' on the roll.  The DM would always say "You hear a faint nibbling of cheese".


LOL Well to also be perfectly clear I have played parts of the Castle Amber game here with you as DM and I can confirm: you are not an asshole DM. If there was any doubt remaining or anything. ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Orpheo on August 20, 2012, 01:46:27 PM
Quote
DM: You are brought in the presence of the King. He wants you to bring back his daughter. He is short on resources, and fears the reaction of the populace if the news of the Crown Princess missing came to be known. You will have to use your own resources to go to the Pictland and bring her back. You will be handsomely rewarded for your troubles and declared Crown heroes upon your return.
(minmaxer): OK wait. I got... +12, plus skill focus, plus... mmm... Hey (to other player) your character is a bard? Sing us a song of encouragement and accord here... mmm so that's another +3.... ok. I got a +41 Diplomacy here. I ask the King to give us a war galley to save his daughter. He has no choice.
DM: (to minmaxer) Hm. Well, Diplomacy doesn't work as mind control. At best it makes the king your friend, disposed to help, but it doesn't change the political situation or his lack of resources, and other priorities in the slightest. He is saddened to have to refuse your demand. Plus... I respect you as a player man, but your character being fudged with a +41 Diplomacy at this table of level 5 characters? That's a bit too much don't you think?
(minmaxer): What the fuck, man? Is this a magical tea party or is this a game? We all play by the same rules, right? It's not my fault that these other assholes can't make a character to save their asses, and it also isn't my fault if YOU can't come up with a decent counter to my +41 diplomacy. Fuck you guys, deal with it or I quit. What's the DC now?

The player is being a dick. Having said that some things just can't be persuaded, whatever you roll.

DM (As the King): Had I a war galley to spare I would heretofore have charged its captain with my daughter's rescue. Alas my fleet is at sea and cannot be diverted/Alas I have no ships to spare/Alas the treasury's coffers are bare and it is all I can do to reward you.

Player: I use my +41 to persuade him to let me shag the princess.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 01:49:18 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574133
No, not 'any hint'.  Blatant CharOp assholery.

Quote from: StormBringer;574133
scatter ten levels across a half dozen or more classes/prestige classes.

;_; Why do you hate non-casters so much. What did they ever do to you.

Quote from: StormBringer;574133
I do expect them to assign skill points reasonably, understand that skills are not magical abilities,

Note: Never bring a rogue to StormBringer's table.
Quote from: StormBringer;574133
None of this is a problem in pre-3.x versions, of course, but that brings us back to the premise of this thread, doesn't it?

About that...
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;573988
I have never been in a 3e or Pathfinder game where one optimized character dominated play. I have seen that in 2e.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 01:50:36 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574142
LOL Well to also be perfectly clear I have played parts of the Castle Amber game here with you as DM and I can confirm: you are not an asshole DM. If there was any doubt remaining or anything. ;)
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.  I thank you for your compliments.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 01:53:41 PM
If you ever wonder why I called you Lord Moron, it's because you keep doing stuff like this:




Quote from: Stormbringer
I do expect them to assign skill points reasonably, understand that skills are not magical abilities,


Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574145


Note: Never bring a rouge (sic) to StormBringer's table.



Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574074


If position you are responding to is radically different to my position and the TGD folks position or anyone else's position. I assume it is a strawman.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 01:59:16 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574142
LOL Well to also be perfectly clear I have played parts of the Castle Amber game here with you as DM and I can confirm: you are not an asshole DM. If there was any doubt remaining or anything. ;)


To me, this recommendation only confirms that he is indeed, "an asshole DM". Mind, it was an unnecessary confirmation.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 02:01:49 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574145
;_; Why do you hate non-casters so much. What did they ever do to you.
Where did I say 'non-casters'?  With minimal effort, I am sure I can come up with a half dozen spell casting classes/prestige classes.

Quote
Note: Never bring a rouge to StormBringer's table.
The amount of make-up you wear is of no concern to me or the play at my table.

Quote
About that...
The part you quoted is neither confirming your position nor denying mine.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 02:03:47 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574155
To me, this recommendation only confirms that he is indeed, "an asshole DM". Mind, it was an unnecessary confirmation.
But your definition of "asshole DM" is someone that doesn't make significant damage adjustments between a .22 calibre bullet and a .223 calibre bullet.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 02:04:29 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574151
If you ever wonder why I called you Lord Moron, it's because you keep doing stuff like this:


If you wonder why I so rarely respond to your posts. It's because I find it hard to understand you through all the cocks you're sucking. Try actually contributing to threads and not sucking Benoist's cock.

Otherwise 0/10 would not be trolled again.

See you in the fall semester.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 02:04:37 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574126
Your experience was with a bad GM, I fail to see how that relates in any way to my post you were replying to (which was all about interactions between the players).


If you can claim that playing a game relates in no way to GMing it with a straight face, then I guess I'll have to let that go.  Our words mean different things.

Quote from: gleichman;574126
In addition. I fail to see why one bad experience would cause one to give up when there are examples out of there of those who have succeeded. Giving up is easy, I'll grant you that. But it fails to build character or much of anything else.


Giving only one example does not in any way mean that there is only one to give.  Search my posts here and you'll find that I claim Star Wars is a terrible d20 game because the Jedi overshadow the rest of the group.

As far as 'giving up is easy', I'd like to point out that I've played and ran RIFTS.  Dragon hatchlings alongside Vagabonds.  I get that it can be done and even enjoyed.

This strikes me as a difference between us.  I claim that both are possible, overshadowing and enjoyment, while you cannot concede that overshadowing is possible - why?  Because I only gave one example of it.

That doesn't come across as genuine discussion to me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 02:04:57 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;574129
Balance is always contentious among gamers in my experience. I think there isn't one single standard of it that works for everyone. To some players, the possibility of imbalance in games is important and part of the fun, for others imbalance creates problems. I also think there are a number of games in more of a middle zone where a certain level of imbalance is desirable but not to the point of having enormous disparities throughout the game. Add to that disagreements over what constitutes imbalance.


What I find interesting here, is that the those who complain hardest about WotC attempting to balance the game, are the same ones who are complaining hardest about non-balanced CharOP.

This by way is an excellent example of what I mean by contradictory thought. It's very common here, people seem to define their principle in place, and immediately go over and say something completely different in another thread or even a post in the same thread.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 02:07:40 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574160

This strikes me as a difference between us.  I claim that both are possible, overshadowing and enjoyment, while you cannot concede that overshadowing is possible


I never said overshadowing wasn't possible. I said any issues from it happening was do to the players themselves making overshadowing into a problem. Different thing.

A game system cannot correct what is a social issue. That's up to the group to do.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 20, 2012, 02:12:02 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574162
What I find interesting here, is that the those who complain hardest about WotC attempting to balance the game, are the same ones who are complaining hardest about non-balanced CharOP.

This by way is an excellent example of what I mean by contradictory thought. It's very common here, people seem to define their principle in place, and immediately go over and say something completely different in another thread or even a post in the same thread.


I think it isn't contradiction so much as disagreeing over the best way to achieve balance. I think what people object to with something like 4E is total parity between classes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 02:15:45 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574165
I never said overshadowing wasn't possible. I said any issues from it happening was do to the players themselves making overshadowing into a problem. Different thing.


This is what you said.

Quote from: gleichman;574089

Lastly, due to my own game style perhaps, I'm amazed that anyone would care if one character overshadows everyone. This is something that's part of the source material for RPGs for like forever.


For the utmost clarity, overshadowing that no one cares about isn't what I'd call overshadowing.  I use vernacular in strange ways, and always have.  Never really had a problem with it when Bush II did it, for example.  So in looking the word up...

"be greater in significance than" - I see this as negative because I believe everyone playing the game wants to be significant.  In fact, I believe that it is the GM's duty to make sure that they are.  E.g. if you allow a player to roll up a trap finding Rogue, then you had better put traps in your game.  Otherwise you should have told them you didn't like traps at the get-go.

"make appear small by comparison" - THAT is the one I meant, and assumed you meant as well.  Nobody likes to be made to appear small by comparison, particularly not in a game with points and levels.  It's just how we're wired.

Quote from: gleichman;574165

A game system cannot correct what is a social issue. That's up to the group to do.


Um, yes, it objectively can.  Monopoly doesn't favor the shoe over the thimble.  Adding complexity does make it more difficult, but it CAN be done.  Should it?  That I'd be willing to debate, because in a lot of ways I think it would be a waste of time to try.  Success would come at too high a cost.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 02:17:14 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574155
To me, this recommendation only confirms that he is indeed, "an asshole DM". Mind, it was an unnecessary confirmation.

I know. For you it's all about your hate on me because I dared to call you an OCD asperger asshole when you started going in la-la-land with your inflated ego and notions that you can't play RPGs meaningfully without visual representations, that you are morally judging people because they use rulings over rules when they're pretending to be elves around the game table, etc etc. I got that over your dozens of post whining about me over the last few days.

But you know what? That says a lot more about you than it does about me, and at the end of the day, just confirms to most sane people that there's something weird and unsettling about your general positions regarding game design and actual play.

So... keep at it. It's fine by me. :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 02:17:29 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574159
If you wonder why I so rarely respond to your posts. It's because I find it hard to understand you through all the cocks you're sucking. Try actually contributing to threads and not sucking Benoist's cock.

Otherwise 0/10 would not be trolled again.

See you in the fall semester.



When have I been sucking up to Benoist?  Or is this yet again another example of you saying I did something I haven't? You still have yet to find a quote of mine where you claimed I'm on record for changing rules mid game to be a dick to the players.

Based on your posting history so far, I expect within hours you'll make a post whining about how everyone is making ad hominems towards you.

I'm guessing a hypocrisy like yours is either intentional, or one grown from years of practice.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 02:17:51 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574156
The part you quoted is neither confirming your position nor denying mine.

Did you even read my post.
Quote from: StormBringer;574133
No, not 'any hint'.  Blatant CharOp assholery.

Quote from: StormBringer;574133
None of this is a problem in pre-3.x versions, of course, but that brings us back to the premise of this thread, doesn't it

You made the claim that optimized characters are not a problem pre-3e
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;573988
I have never been in a 3e or Pathfinder game where one optimized character dominated play. I have seen that in 2e.

Caesar Slaad has apparently been in 2e actual games where actual 2e players dominated the game with 2e characters that they optimized.
If this is true than your claim about optimization not being a problem pre-3e is wrong because 2e players dominated 2e games with the 2e characters that they optimized using the 2e rules. In 2e.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 02:20:19 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;574169
I think it isn't contradiction so much as disagreeing over the best way to achieve balance. I think what people object to with something like 4E is total parity between classes.

Balance at its most extreme is total parity between classes.

WotC saw threads like this one, where players objected to 3.x CharOP and attempted the only mechanical solution to the problem that's possible- total parity (not saying they succeeded here). In a way, the bashers of 3.x CharOp got exactly what they wanted. And the same bashers complained even more.

What we have here are people who don't have a gaming philosophy that's consistent or that can deal with the unintended consequence of their desires. Instead we have people throwing ideas at the wall to see which stick, and then they get mad at WotC for doing the same thing with 5th Edition.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 02:23:02 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571751
My preferred game is AD&D.  I think everyone knows that.  That being said, I gotta say, Declan and 1989 especially, and you Benoist to a slightly less extent, seem to have this irrational hatred of any non AD&D 1e version.  I dare say, it rivals the 3tards and 4vengers in comparison.  I get pissed at some of the fanbois of those editions, but I don't loathe any version itself.

Just a game dudes.


Just an FYI guys, apparently according to Lord Moron, this is an example of me sucking Benoit's cock.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 02:25:34 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574173

"be greater in significance than" - I see this as negative because I believe everyone playing the game wants to be significant.


That's your choice. It doesn't have to be that way.

I think in fact that the desire is a harmful one, almost childlike in a way (cue the Princess Bride Speech about 'who told you life is fair'). But that's my opinion. You may take whatever action you desire at your gaming table, use whatever system you like.

Just be aware that they're other methods.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 02:28:37 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574179
Just an FYI guys, apparently according to Lord Moron, this is an example of me sucking Benoit's cock.


I get you confused with Marleycat sometimes. You have the same way of posting nothing of substance veiled in trolling.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 02:30:40 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574181
I get you confused ...

Yeah, I see that.  It happens quite often.  Doesn't change the fact that you're a giant hypocrite, engaging in a behavior and then minutes later complaining about people doing the exact same thing to you.

I gotta ask.  Are you 12?  Because you and MGuy use the same logic and debate style as kids in my kid's 6th grade class.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 02:37:26 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574180
That's your choice. It doesn't have to be that way.

I think in fact that the desire is a harmful one, almost childlike in a way (cue the Princess Bride Speech about 'who told you life is fair'). But that's my opinion. You may take whatever action you desire at your gaming table, use whatever system you like.

Just be aware that they're other methods.


RIFTS, dude.  You're not making me aware.  Perhaps that example is lost on you as well, but I'm not aware of any other system so gravely imbalanced as that one, and I gave it four or five years of my life.  Been there, done that.

What I have learned, though, is that the people that like to watch the "Gary's character show" aren't people I want to have around my table.

Anyway, and again, you should hopefully by now realize that the desire does exist.  Hopefully you'll come to see it as a common desire, which should keep you from being surprised to see it crop up in the future.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 02:37:45 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574157
But your definition of "asshole DM" is someone that doesn't make significant damage adjustments between a .22 calibre bullet and a .223 calibre bullet.


It ain't the bullet exactly, its the round. A .223 Remmington or 5.56 NATO round is vastly different from a standard .22LR cartridge.

(self confessed firearm geek)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 02:40:52 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574194
It ain't the bullet exactly, its the round. A .223 Remmington or 5.56 NATO round is vastly different from a standard .22LR cartridge.

(self confessed firearm geek)


Yeah, not a good comparison Stormy.  A better one would be comparing the stats for a Walther PPK .38 with a Bersa Thunder .38.

For most people, there is no real difference, at least in terms of an RPG.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 02:40:59 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574193
RIFTS, dude.  You're not making me aware.  Perhaps that example is lost on you as well, but I'm not aware of any other system so gravely imbalanced as that one, and I gave it four or five years of my life.  Been there, done that.

What I have learned, though, is that the people that like to watch the "Gary's character show" aren't people I want to have around my table.

Anyway, and again, you should hopefully by now realize that the desire does exist.  Hopefully you'll come to see it as a common desire, which should keep you from being surprised to see it crop up in the future.


Mega Damage. Oh my Lord...Mega Damage!!!!

RIFTS contribution to rpgs is MEGA DAMAGE!!!!!  

Flee for your life!


I like the Rifts setting, but I may have issues with mega damage.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 02:44:09 PM
Of all the games I've played, RIFTS was the one where charOP was the worst.

I was new to the game and was working with the GM on building my character.  He let me be a werewolf, which I thought at first was way too powerful (I'm an AD&D guy).  I made him, and thought he was pretty cool.  Then I got introduced to the rest of the group.

Juicers and Glitterboys.


Needless to say my character was worthless.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571751
My preferred game is AD&D.  I think everyone knows that.  That being said, I gotta say, Declan and 1989 especially, and you Benoist to a slightly less extent, seem to have this irrational hatred of any non AD&D 1e version.
Actually I wouldn't qualify it as hatred (I would play any edition of D&D with the right people, and have) as much as blatant criticism, and I wouldn't think of it as irrational either, since various points regarding various editions of the game have been very much debated on these boards over the last few years.

"I don't relate to your argument" =/= irrational.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 02:51:31 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574193
I gave it four or five years of my life.  Been there, done that.


And you're still showing the scars. Sad that.

I've experienced bad DMs and players before, but frankly I'm hard pressed to recall them. I have more important things to do than fixate on bad experiences. I learn from them, I don't toss out the baby with the bathwater, and I move on to better things.

As I said, I think the search for game balance will in the end in nothing but heartache. And here you are, demonstrating that very concept to us. Proudly showing off your bad experiences and claiming that even if there is a way to play with radically different power levels between characters, and play well- you just won't accept it. Balance must be maintained.


Quote from: mcbobbo;574193

Anyway, and again, you should hopefully by now realize that the desire does exist.  Hopefully you'll come to see it as a common desire, which should keep you from being surprised to see it crop up in the future.


I see it all the time. And I see the same pain and anger in the people expressing it every time.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 02:53:05 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574156
Where did I say 'non-casters'?  With minimal effort, I am sure I can come up with a half dozen spell casting classes/prestige classes.

Optimized main casters do not as a genral rule ever multiclass and they never ever take a level in a Prc that not labled "+1 to existing spellcasting class." and few PrCs are a major upgrade for casters.

The step down from Wizard 5/Master Specialist 4 to Wizard 9 is not as meaningfull one the step from Barbarian1/Fighter 4/Prc 4 to Fighter 9.

Not allowing multiclassing is a nerf only to classes that don't cast spells.

Not allowing PrCs nerfs everyone but disproportionately effects non-casters

This is 3e 101 for the love of all that's holy.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 02:53:19 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574194
It ain't the bullet exactly, its the round. A .223 Remmington or 5.56 NATO round is vastly different from a standard .22LR cartridge.


It's the bullet too.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 02:56:27 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574194
It ain't the bullet exactly, its the round. A .223 Remmington or 5.56 NATO round is vastly different from a standard .22LR cartridge.

(self confessed firearm geek)


I'm pretty confident that there are nearly zero RPGs where the difference matters.  Pretty much like there's not much need to differentiate two swords from each other.  You CAN do it, for flavor, but damage is damage in just about every RPG I know of...

Now the difference between a .22 and a 45-110, sure, that we can discuss.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 20, 2012, 02:57:30 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574181
I get you confused with Marleycat sometimes. You have the same way of posting nothing of substance veiled in trolling.

Whoa whoa whoa. Marleycat is just an echo chamber. Sac has an opinion, it's just that he is incapably of making a logical one or, you know, realizing when and how he fucked up. He continues to fail at it even when you explicitly show it to him.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 03:01:01 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574206
It's the bullet too.


Of course, but the overall round is more telling than the slug difference in this particular case. With fragmentation design in the .223, more of a case can be made for the bullet.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 03:01:20 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574208
I'm pretty confident that there are nearly zero RPGs where the difference matters.  Pretty much like there's not much need to differentiate two swords from each other.  You CAN do it, for flavor, but damage is damage in just about every RPG I know of...


Oh my.

Ever play HERO System? Morrow Project? Top Secret?... I could go on forever... GURPS...
Only the most generic and lightest systems (where the only choice you have is 'Gun') doesn't show that some difference between the .22 LR and the .223.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 03:03:37 PM
Quote from: MGuy;574209
Whoa whoa whoa. Marleycat is just an echo chamber. Sac has an opinion, it's just that he is incapably of making a logical one or, you know, realizing when and how he fucked up. He continues to fail at it even when you explicitly show it to him.


You have yet to show me how I fucked up.  And no, the entitlement thing isn't one of them because I was already talking about empowerment before you did.

I even posted the quotes with date/time stamps for you.  So unless you think I have some magical time traveling powers, you fail.

Again.  I'm anxiously awaiting you to get all wound up again after being shown how wrong you are and post something extremely ridiculous*.  It's good comedy.  And very predictable.

*like, "4e has everything an AD&D player wants"

or

bitching about people making up strawmen and then immediately changing their posts into strawmen with "translated"

or

"In AD&D, the DMs were dicks who wouldn't players do anything and actively tried to fuck them over" (despite never seeing an AD&D being played yourself)

So please, continue.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 03:05:37 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574208
I'm pretty confident that there are nearly zero RPGs where the difference matters.  


Between a .22 and .223?  Huge difference actually.

(http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_penny_223-tfb.jpg)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 03:05:42 PM
Quote from: MGuy;574209
Whoa whoa whoa. Marleycat is just an echo chamber. Sac has an opinion, it's just that he is incapably of making a logical one or, you know, realizing when and how he fucked up. He continues to fail at it even when you explicitly show it to him.


Trolling is indistinguishable from sufficiently advanced stupidity.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574204
And you're still showing the scars. Sad that.


lol, so now I'm a drama queen whose opinion is to be regarded with less weight?  Nice.

Quote from: gleichman;574204

I've experienced bad DMs and players before, but frankly I'm hard pressed to recall them. I have more important things to do than fixate on bad experiences. I learn from them, I don't toss out the baby with the bathwater, and I move on to better things.


Yeah, I'm going to call BS on this one, seeing as you're still limping from some of the insults levied at you over the internet by people you don't know or care about.  Unless somehow anonymous people on the internet mean less to you than those you interact with face-to-face?

Quote from: gleichman;574204

As I said, I think the search for game balance will in the end in nothing but heartache. And here you are, demonstrating that very concept to us. Proudly showing off your bad experiences and claiming that even if there is a way to play with radically different power levels between characters, and play well- you just won't accept it. Balance must be maintained.


This isn't a religious discussion.  I am not seeking the 'one true way', nor do I believe you could offer it to me if I were.

In point of fact, my only 'sob story' was under a point buy system that didn't even have levels.  You also said it was irrelevant, remember?  And yet now it is some profound example of my 'heartache'.

Quote from: gleichman;574204

I see it all the time. And I see the same pain and anger in the people expressing it every time.


Even when it isn't necessarily there...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 03:09:45 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574215
Between a .22 and .223?  Huge difference actually.

(http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_penny_223-tfb.jpg)


No matter how hard I squint, the bullet on the right stays much larger than the other one...


Size does matter....
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574208
I'm pretty confident that there are nearly zero RPGs where the difference matters.  Pretty much like there's not much need to differentiate two swords from each other.  You CAN do it, for flavor, but damage is damage in just about every RPG I know of...

Now the difference between a .22 and a 45-110, sure, that we can discuss.


My go-to systems for firearms is GURPS, which does a good job with firearms.

I would expect any RPG featuring firearms to differ between a .22 hunting rifle and an M-16/AR-15 military rifle.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 03:11:13 PM
Quote from: MGuy;574209
Whoa whoa whoa. Marleycat is just an echo chamber. Sac has an opinion, it's just that he is incapably of making a logical one or, you know, realizing when and how he fucked up. He continues to fail at it even when you explicitly show it to him.


Ad hominem by proxy.  How new and elegant.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 03:12:44 PM
Quote from: Bill;574220
No matter how hard I squint, the bullet on the right stays much larger than the other one...


Size does matter....


Impact doesn't, though, if you have fewer than (e.g.) 10 hit points.  You'll survive two bullets before you drop.  One with a crit.

Both bullets can achieve that result.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 03:13:44 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574221
My go-to systems for firearms is GURPS, which does a good job with firearms.

I would expect any RPG featuring firearms to differ between a .22 hunting rifle and an M-16/AR-15 military rifle.


Range?  Yes.  Rate of fire?  Sure.

In a way that matters in an RPG?  Probably not.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 20, 2012, 03:16:38 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574228
Range?  Yes.  Rate of fire?  Sure.

In a way that matters in an RPG?  Probably not.


A rules lite system may not have enough granularity to represent more than a few ranges of effect.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 20, 2012, 03:17:22 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574224
Ad hominem by proxy.  How new and elegant.


Well if he's going to label them I feel as though he should apply the right labels.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 03:17:37 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574194
It ain't the bullet exactly, its the round. A .223 Remmington or 5.56 NATO round is vastly different from a standard .22LR cartridge.

(self confessed firearm geek)
Absolutely.  However, put the same powder behind that .223 as the .22 has, and the difference all but disappears.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 03:19:29 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574231
Absolutely.  However, put the same powder behind that .223 as the .22 has, and the difference all but disappears.


Or move them both inside the same (short) range, such as is usually present during play in an RPG.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 03:19:53 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574197
Yeah, not a good comparison Stormy.  A better one would be comparing the stats for a Walther PPK .38 with a Bersa Thunder .38.

For most people, there is no real difference, at least in terms of an RPG.
I recall Gleichman had some hard-on over that three thousandths of an inch making some kind of difference in the other thread, but I am willing to be corrected.

In any case, his definition of 'asshole DM' is going to be wildly different than just about anyone else.

EDIT: This is what I mean
Quote from: gleichman;574206
It's the bullet too.

Put a full metal jacket on the .22 and it will be a good deal more potent.  Put a flat nose or hollow point on the .223 and it will disintegrate going through a sheet of paper.  Essentially, though, it's the charge of powder behind the bullet.  Same thing with airplanes; the F-4 is living proof that anything can fly with enough power behind it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Imp on August 20, 2012, 03:28:03 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574231
However, put the same powder behind that .223 as the .22 has, and the difference all but disappears.


(and etc. etc. previously)

Oh good we've gotten to that part of the conversation where we start thanking God that D20 Modern never caught on as much as 3.x D&D did. :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 20, 2012, 03:31:48 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574231
Absolutely.  However, put the same powder behind that .223 as the .22 has, and the difference all but disappears.


Actually no, a .22 Pistol round fires a ~1.9g bullet, the .223 rifle bullet is ~62g.
You would have to push that pistol round at a much higher velocity to achieve the same total energy.  Could you do it if you filled a .223 case with a .22 and a load of powder? Doubt it.

Calculating accurate firearms damage is all about raw energy or if you model it further, mass and velocity, or if you model it further, sectional density, which may or may not be the holy grail of "stopping power" depending on who you ask.  :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 03:38:11 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;574239
Actually no, a .22 Pistol round fires a ~1.9g bullet, the .223 rifle bullet is ~62g.
You would have to push that pistol round at a much higher velocity to achieve the same total energy.  Could you do it if you filled a .223 case with a .22 and a load of powder? Doubt it.

Calculating accurate firearms damage is all about raw energy or if you model it further, mass and velocity, or if you model it further, sectional density, which may or may not be the holy grail of "stopping power" depending on who you ask.  :D


This is SUCH a tangent at this point, but...

'Total energy' isn't relevant.  Impact is.  A smaller total amount of energy is more lethal than a larger amount, IF and WHEN that larger amount blows right through soft tissue.  But again, neither is pleasant and both gunshot wounds represent the same 'oh shit' situation whereas the difference between a dagger and a battleaxe is much more profound.

Location is everything, though, as always.

If your system has fiddly bits for situational damage reduction, then we might need more detail.  AFAIK, most don't.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 03:39:32 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;574239
Calculating accurate firearms damage is all about raw energy or if you model it further, mass and velocity, or if you model it further, sectional density, which may or may not be the holy grail of "stopping power" depending on who you ask.  :D


The holy grail of stopping power is a +p.45 round. :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;574239
Actually no, a .22 Pistol round fires a ~1.9g bullet, the .223 rifle bullet is ~62g.
You would have to push that pistol round at a much higher velocity to achieve the same total energy.  Could you do it if you filled a .223 case with a .22 and a load of powder? Doubt it.

The .22 LR bullet is a lead round nose (maybe with a thin copper coating- not a jacket, a coating, and/or a hollow point). My bet is that firing it at .223 pressures would result in it turning to lead dust that likely wouldn't reach the target if it was but 20 feet in front of you.


IF the bullet held up In no case could you get any range out of it and velocity would drop quickly and like a rock (to say nothing of penetration sucking as the bullet exploded on surface impact if you were close enough). You'd also quickly lead up your barrel making each shot after the first worse until you're firing something less effective than a smooth bore.

There's more I could say here, but I'm not sure if I want to gum up the thread more. I'll answer questions however if anyone has any.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;574212
Of course, but the overall round is more telling than the slug difference in this particular case. With fragmentation design in the .223, more of a case can be made for the bullet.

Covered and refuted between CRKrueger's post and mine.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: Bill;574229
A rules lite system may not have enough granularity to represent more than a few ranges of effect.


If it can show the difference between a pistol and rifle, it can show the difference between a .22 LR and a .223.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 03:47:10 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574217
lol, so now I'm a drama queen whose opinion is to be regarded with less weight?  Nice.



Quote from: mcbobbo;574227
Impact doesn't, though, if you have fewer than (e.g.) 10 hit points.  You'll survive two bullets before you drop.  One with a crit.

Both bullets can achieve that result.


There comes a point online when you realize that not only is the person you're talking to completely missing the point, but are stupid too. And not willing to be educated.

Into the ignore list.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 03:49:24 PM
Suddenly firearms derail.

In the interest of pandering to the crowd I posit that 4e is terrible.

There was broken shit from day one, the best damage classes often out damage the worst by 100%, People jump off the RNG all the time even though that was never supposed to happen. They sacrificed   the entire non combat part of the game and set all the interesting abilities on fire in the name of balancing the game, and then the failed to balance the game.

The difference with 3e is you can not fail at 4e due to padded sumo and 4e healing preventing players from ever dieing. (unless all of the monsters jump on a single player.)

Despite 4e only having combat 4e has incredibly boring combat. You have 3-4 encounter powers which you have no reason to not blow at that start of combat. After that enjoy spamming your at-wills (spoiler: you will not enjoy spamming your at-wills). After combat has dragged on for 5-8 rounds the monsters will all be dead and everyone will get their phat loot. The 5-8 rounds of combat will take over 1hr in real time due to exception-based design.

I don't recommend playing 4e but if you want to I suggest have everyone play a Ranger and focus fire on mobs. That's was my groups strategy, I have no idea if it's OP or not but regardless combat will be over quickly and then everyone will be happy because they have to play less 4e.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 20, 2012, 03:49:49 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574242
'Total energy' isn't relevant.  Impact is.  A smaller total amount of energy is more lethal than a larger amount, IF and WHEN that larger amount blows right through soft tissue.
Right, which is why I said if you want to be more accurate you move beyond energy, to looking at other factors like mass of bullet, or sectional density which takes into consideration striking surface vs. mass, in other words, things that will better determine how much of that energy actually is transferred into the target.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 03:54:09 PM
Is it odd that the forum that's supposed to be all about rulings not rules just went on a long tangent about how firearms should be represented accurately (presumably with some sort of rules).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;574250
Right, which is why I said if you want to be more accurate you move beyond energy, to looking at other factors like mass of bullet, or sectional density which takes into consideration striking surface vs. mass, in other words, things that will better determine how much of that energy actually is transferred into the target.


Okay, okay, good.  Now - how many RPGs use that level of detail?

:)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 03:56:17 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574253
Is it odd that the forum that's supposed to be all about ruling not rules just went on a long tangent about how firearms should be represented accurately (presumably with some sort of rules).


Not sure where you got from...  At the top of this page, it plainly says:

Quote

Roleplaying Games (RPGs) For discussion of traditional pen-and-paper roleplaying games and anything related to their game mechanics and settings, as well as industry events and gossip.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 03:57:30 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574247
There comes a point online when you realize that not only is the person you're talking to completely missing the point, but are stupid too. And not willing to be educated.

Into the ignore list.


Okay, maybe I took it too far with the butthurt comment.

On the upside, I'm not all that disappointed either.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 20, 2012, 03:59:18 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574255
Not sure where you got from...  At the top of this page, it plainly says:


Yeah but people here tend to pitch huge fits and call you autistic if you make an argument based on the rules.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 04:01:38 PM
Ok, I'm sorry, but this bugs me.  You can't say the .22 would do roughly the same if put into a cartridge that had the powder of a .223.  The little .22 bullet wouldn't make it out of the barrel in one piece.

But anyway, for a visual comparison:

.22
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_22LR.jpg)

.223
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_223.jpg)

to me, in RPG terms, that's the difference between a sword and a dagger.  So yeah, any rpg worth it's salt will have a difference between those two bullets.

For the curious, here is a 7.62:
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_308.jpg)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 20, 2012, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574214
You have yet to show me how I fucked up.  And no, the entitlement thing isn't one of them because I was already talking about empowerment before you did.

You know, I just want to dispel this stupid rumor so let's give it a go.

Quote from: Sac
You have it right. Only the opposite. Not a big shocker that you'd be totally wrong with this.

See, "grognards" are completely for player empowerment. In fact, it's highly encouraged. Creative ideas and role-playing were highly encouraged back in the day. I find it a bit ironic that someone who favors WOTC D&D much more than TSR D&D would claim that grognards are against player empowerment when it's 3e that started with the whole "if you don't have a skill for it, you can't do it."
Post you're talking about.
Applicable response:
Quote from: LordMistborn
Magical Tea Party is not player empowerment. You only succed in MTP if the DM allows you to, and when you do it feels hollow because you know deep down inside that the DM could have just as easily said no.

Your confusion:
Quote from: Sac
What are you even talking about?

So you don't even know what MTP is when you're talking about it. Now this is important for later but here's some other shit you said:
Quote from: Sac
Why? Because like I already said twice in this thread, AD&D was all about player entitlement. It wasn't about character entitlement, but that's different. Players were actively encouraged to come up with creative ways of doing things, and were rewarded for doing so.
So there's where you admit you're talking about entitlement. Now when I point out to you that I used a different word you said...

Quote from: Sac
Personally, I don't think there is much functional difference in the context of those two words, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that they mean completely different things. You said you read my posts and don't ignore them, so I assume you read this one:
Here's where you admit you don't really believe they mean different things.

However even in admitting this you still backpedal:
Quote from: Sac
What word did I use there? So even if I made a slight mistake and used entitlement instead of empowerment in the post you just quoted, obviously I had already said the exact same thing about empowerment--the word you *did* use.

But you didn't say the same thing I said. You used the same word but didn't say the same thing.

Here's where I lay out the differences:
Quote from: me
There are. Entitlement means that players feel that they are entitled to something. That they just get something. Empowerment suggest players can make things happen. Thus why games like 3e which doesn't encourage GM wankery and has players advance or fail based on the rules of the game encourages empowerment.

What you're talking about is the GM deciding whether or not player's fail with the caveat that the GM should let the players pass if they meet that GM's qualifications. So no, you ARE talking about something else.

 You respond to this by saying this:
Quote
I already showed the quote I made where I said the exact same thing about empowerment. You said you read the posts. I made that post long before you made yours. So no, I was talking about empowerment. The question here is, after I made the comment about how AD&D encouraged empowerment and his statement was incorrect, why did you repeat the same thing he said that was already disproved? I'll wait for you to answer that question. Although I expect instead of answering it, I'll get another red herring.
So what do I say to this? You used the word Empowerment when you meant entitlement. Even your explanation of what you called "empowerment" was only MTP as called out by Mistborn. And of course you walk away laying that shit at my feet and want me to say something else? You refer me to a post that was pretty clearly not about actual empowerment, I explain to you what the difference between entitlement (which is what you want) and empowerment (something I want) is and you ignore it then claim victory when I have nothing more to say.

Your capacity to ignore arguments and defy reason is well noted and there is no reason to talk to you about anything because you've proven you're willing to claim victory no matter what so you aren't worth talking to.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574254
Okay, okay, good.  Now - how many RPGs use that level of detail?

:)


Most modern rpgs that I know of will have at least three things:

* range
* damage
* armor penetration capability (if applicable)

Those are all pretty basic things because there's such a huge difference.  For example, you can put on football pads and a .22 won't ever hurt you.  But if I hit you with a .223, the pads won't do anything.

Velocity and mass.

the big difference between Gleichman and myself on the issue is that he thinks there should also be a functional difference between a PPK and Beretta 9mm.  That's all fine and good, but when you start getting into that level of granularity, your weapon charts get out of control.

I suppose an analogy would be to have a chart full of swords for every 1" increment in length, 2oz increment in weight, and 1/4" increment in width of the blade.

At some point you just go with the basics because only the most anal retentive folks would prefer all that detail.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 20, 2012, 04:08:17 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574254
Okay, okay, good.  Now - how many RPGs use that level of detail?

:)


Modeling the difference between a 9mm 124gr vs. a 115gr at higher velocity? Not many.

Modeling the difference between a .22 and .223? All.
Modeling the difference between a FMJ and JHP? Most.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 04:09:46 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574259
Ok, I'm sorry, but this bugs me.  You can't say the .22 would do roughly the same if put into a cartridge that had the powder of a .223.  The little .22 bullet wouldn't make it out of the barrel in one piece.

But anyway, for a visual comparison:

.22
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_22LR.jpg)

.223
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_223.jpg)

to me, in RPG terms, that's the difference between a sword and a dagger.  So yeah, any rpg worth it's salt will have a difference between those two bullets.

For the curious, here is a 7.62:
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_308.jpg)


Okay, and I love that post, but isn't it demonstrating difference in fragmentation, instead of caliber?

E.g. do you have the same info on a hollow point, or a 30-30?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 04:11:58 PM
Quote from: MGuy;574261

 So what do I say to this? You used the word Empowerment when you meant entitlement.


Jesus you fucking idiot.  The post I made re: empowerment was made first!  Before your post, and before my reply.  It was in response to the the post that AD&D was against empowerment.

I didn't use the word empowerment when I meant entitlement.  Like everything else dumbass, you have it BACKWARDS.  I already said I used "entitlement" when I meant "empowerment", and proved that by showing you the original post I made that said "empowerment".  You going on a rant about entitlement after I already said I was talking about empowerment just shows that you desperately were trying to cling to a red herring.

Jesus H Christ...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 04:12:43 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;574266
Modeling the difference between a 9mm 124gr vs. a 115gr at higher velocity? Not many.

Modeling the difference between a .22 and .223? All.
Modeling the difference between a FMJ and JHP? Most.


Difference between .380 ACP/9mm short and 9mm Para? Most
Difference between 9mm and .38 Special ? Many
   But only because they model the difference between autos and revolvers- it's not the round being fired that matters here
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 20, 2012, 04:13:13 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;574266
Modeling the difference between a 9mm 124gr vs. a 115gr at higher velocity? Not many.

Modeling the difference between a .22 and .223? All.
Modeling the difference between a FMJ and JHP? Most.


:)

Reminds me of the scene from Tremors:

"These are hollowpoints, but they're not Hydra-shok hollowpoints."

"What's the difference, bullets are bullets."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 04:17:31 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574268
Okay, and I love that post, but isn't it demonstrating difference in fragmentation, instead of caliber?

E.g. do you have the same info on a hollow point, or a 30-30?


Not on hand, and not really a difference on fragmentation.  I'd suggest watching some youtube clips of ballistic gel results if you're interested.  Most cavity damage is based on mass and velocity.  i.e., you could have a complete pass through with a higher caliber round with no fragmentation, and you'd still have a much larger wound.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 04:21:12 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574272
:)
Reminds me of the scene from Tremors:

"These are hollowpoints, but they're not Hydra-shok hollowpoints."


Not that would be a detailed game indeed. I think that Dark Champions for HERO System may have done this... maybe not.

It could be done (in HERO), but I personally wouldn't make the effort. I just assume that the Hollow Points the characters are using are the best they have access to.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 20, 2012, 04:25:01 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574273
Not on hand, and not really a difference on fragmentation.  I'd suggest watching some youtube clips of ballistic gel results if you're interested.  Most cavity damage is based on mass and velocity.  i.e., you could have a complete pass through with a higher caliber round with no fragmentation, and you'd still have a much larger wound.


I've seen some, ala 'Deadliest Warrior', and also have a good deal of hunting experience in the real world as well.

I've come to believe that 'bullet == big problem' based on this experience.

So while I still hold that many RPGs don't have this level of granularity, I do concede the well-made point.  There seems to be more measurable impact from the fragmenting rounds, at a minimum.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 04:25:10 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574275
Not that would be a detailed game indeed. I think that Dark Champions for HERO System may have done this... maybe not.

It could be done (in HERO), but I personally wouldn't make the effort. I just assume that the Hollow Points the characters are using are the best they have access to.


This is where I embarrassingly admit that in my game I'm working on, I do have a difference.  The hydroshocks retain a better penetrating power due to the hardened core that hollowpoints don't have.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574256
Okay, maybe I took it too far with the butthurt comment.
No, you did not. He was a genuine arrogant POS in the argument, and if anything, I thought you were really patient with him. We all tried to have a reasonable discussion with Brian Gleichman at some point or other. Usually, it quickly reaches the point where he says completely outlandish stuff (like 'you can't meaningfully run a RPG combat without visual representations' or 'the fact you favor rulings not rules when you pretend to be elves says something awful about you morally as a person') where you go "WTF?" and from there there are two basic reactions from him: (1) he becomes super arrogant and strongly intimates that you are mentally deficient, or a liar, while he can kill you with his brain, and/or (2) he goes into a rant and thinks that you are one of the worst persons that ever existed from there, and he'll poke at you in various threads for other apparent reason than to say you are a horrible person and everyone should know about it.

It's okay. You get used to it after a while.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Black Vulmea on August 20, 2012, 04:42:11 PM
Quote from: Bill;574220
No matter how hard I squint, the bullet on the right stays much larger than the other one...

Try rotating your monitor counter-clockwise beween thirty and thirty-three revolutions per minute while staring at the penny.

Usually takes about five minutes for the effect to be noticeable.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 20, 2012, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574259
Ok, I'm sorry, but this bugs me.  You can't say the .22 would do roughly the same if put into a cartridge that had the powder of a .223.  The little .22 bullet wouldn't make it out of the barrel in one piece.

But anyway, for a visual comparison:

.22
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_22LR.jpg)

.223
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_223.jpg)

to me, in RPG terms, that's the difference between a sword and a dagger.  So yeah, any rpg worth it's salt will have a difference between those two bullets.

For the curious, here is a 7.62:
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_308.jpg)


Holy shit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 05:27:57 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574264
Those are all pretty basic things because there's such a huge difference.  For example, you can put on football pads and a .22 won't ever hurt you.  But if I hit you with a .223, the pads won't do anything.
I don't think I want to test this theory empirically.  :)

Quote
Velocity and mass.
As in, there is more to it than bullet diameter.

Quote
the big difference between Gleichman and myself on the issue is that he thinks there should also be a functional difference between a PPK and Beretta 9mm.  That's all fine and good, but when you start getting into that level of granularity, your weapon charts get out of control.
And I am saying that his charts (http://home.roadrunner.com/~b.gleichman/Hero/Conversions/Firearms/rw_conversion.htm) reflect a functional difference (in Hero 5th) between a .4 inch bullet and a .45 inch bullet regardless of how the round is constructed or fired, which is why I am leery of Gleichman's assessments of what constitutes an 'asshole DM'.  Especially from someone who laments the lack of 'realism (http://home.roadrunner.com/~b.gleichman/Theory/firearms.htm)' most RPGs have in the area of firearms.

I wasn't really concerned at the moment about the differences between a .22 and a .223, I was just pointing out how integrating those differences in an RPG is well outside the bounds of 'reasonable' design.  Like McBobbo says, there are other differences that are more important.

Quote
At some point you just go with the basics because only the most anal retentive folks would prefer all that detail.
Have you seen the errata for Age of Heroes?  It's like sitting in a law library.  No detail is too small to overlook.  And clearly, anyone who overlooks them shouldn't be involved in RPGs.  His level of 'realism' is the absolute minimum that should be included, otherwise you are wasting your time.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 05:31:36 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574259
Ok, I'm sorry, but this bugs me.  You can't say the .22 would do roughly the same if put into a cartridge that had the powder of a .223.  The little .22 bullet wouldn't make it out of the barrel in one piece.

But anyway, for a visual comparison:

.22
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_22LR.jpg)

.223
(http://www.chuckhawks.com/energy_transfer_223.jpg)

to me, in RPG terms, that's the difference between a sword and a dagger.  So yeah, any rpg worth it's salt will have a difference between those two bullets.
Sure, but as you mentioned before, look at the difference in velocity.  If the .223 was only travelling at 1122 f/s, do you think it would do significantly better than the .22?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 05:32:30 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574305


Have you seen the errata for Age of Heroes?  It's like sitting in a law library.  No detail is too small to overlook.  And clearly, anyone who overlooks them shouldn't be involved in RPGs.  His level of 'realism' is the absolute minimum that should be included, otherwise you are wasting your time.


Which would be funny, because in the game design forum we had this discussion a couple weeks ago, and even his method pretty much came down to, "pick which factors you like and pull the result out of your ass."

Really, with firearms especially, there are so many factors and values that go into something like damage, that you have to pick and choose and just make shit up to the best of your ability.  In an RPG, I think 99% of the people are OK with this.  RPGs don't have the luxury of having a processor to calculate all of these variables behind the scenes like a video game has.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 05:40:57 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574307
Sure, but as you mentioned before, look at the difference in velocity.  If the .223 was only travelling at 1122 f/s, do you think it would do significantly better than the .22?


No. I suspect it would be similar to a .25 pistol round.  But then if you were to put a .223 bullet into a pistol sized cartridge, you'd shrink the actual size of the bullet down.  Not diameter, but length and weight.  You can't really take a .223 bullet and slap it into a pistol cartridge because there wouldn't be any room left for the powder and it would be a wasted bullet.  You might as well throw at the target.

And that's the real difference here.  With pistols, you're getting around 800-1200 fps.  With rifles, you get 2500-3500 fps with the same diameter round.  That's why you see such a vast difference in trauma and penetration.  rifles allow you to have a much bigger cartridge, which in turn allows for more powder which means more velocity.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 05:44:04 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574305
And I am saying that his charts (http://home.roadrunner.com/~b.gleichman/Hero/Conversions/Firearms/rw_conversion.htm) reflect a functional difference (in Hero 5th) between a .4 inch bullet and a .45 inch bullet regardless of how the round is constructed or fired, which is why I am leery of Gleichman's assessments of what constitutes an 'asshole DM'.  Especially from someone who laments the lack of 'realism (http://home.roadrunner.com/~b.gleichman/Theory/firearms.htm)' most RPGs have in the area of firearms.

I have you on ignore (with is really just a reminder to myself to not respond to you). But I'll make an exception in this case because you're misleading people badly about something I wrote.

The link you provided is the link to the base values conversion, which as the article states is considered to be the common or best case FMJ round for the weapon.

The effect of bullet type (i.e. construction) is found on another page at that site. It's not very long because... while because of a number of reasons. You're not a person I feel like explaining them too. I'm thinking of increasing the different types of ammo there someday but it's not a high priority for me.

As also noted at that site (on yet another page you didn't link), the whole exercise was intended to improve realism in HERO to a acceptable degree. Not account for everything, not to be the final word on realism- but to improve it for both Superhero and non-Superhero style games. Thus some things have been simplified, often greatly- but not as simple as HERO originally did.

One thing that won't ever be seen there is something showing why you can't fire a .22 LR bullet out of a .223 case. I know it's a stupid idea, and the pages there are house rules- not a full on treatise for ballistics. Instead I (again on that site) link to full on treatments of the subject if one is interested.

By the way- your inability to read the entire website, the leaping to unfounded conclusions based upon your partial reading, and the making up of motivations for me that don't exist is why you're on my ignore list.


Oh, and this:

Quote from: StormBringer;574305
Have you seen the errata for Age of Heroes? It's like sitting in a law library.

Here (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2012/06/age-of-heroes-errata.html) is the entire errata for Age of Heroes.  It's basically six typos and one rule section that was left out of the final copy.

If that's a law library to you... even more reason for you to be on my Ignore list.



Edit: BTW Sacrosanct is not my favorite person and I have many problems with him. However he's far from stupid about firearms. Needs more practical experience- but far from stupid.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 06:27:39 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574312
As also noted at that site (on yet another page you didn't link), the whole exercise was intended to improve realism in HERO to a acceptable degree. Not account for everything, not to be the final word on realism- but to improve it for both Superhero and non-Superhero style games. Thus some things have been simplified, often greatly- but not as simple as HERO originally did.
Yeah, you are talking about improving the 'realism' in a game about superheroes.

And here is your 'acceptable degree':
Quote
This value in HERO is the STR required to properly handle a weapon. Like most things, a great many factors weigh into this single concept. Shape and design of the weapon, build of the shooter, even air temperature and altitude. Luckily for us much of this would fall between the limited number of values HERO provides. Even so, we're going to have to simplify greatly and ignore important considerations just to be able to produce a single value that applies to all characters without exception.



  Towards that end, we'll focus on a simplified model- that of Free Recoil Energy. Even here, we'll take huge steps of simplification- assuming for example that gas pressure is constant for all weapons (not true in the least of course, we're using the standard value for 30-06 style rifles). Also simplified is the effect of barrel length for which we'll assume that gas pressure is in direct nearly proportion to barrel length (to which we'll add a vastly simplified 10" in order to prevent division by zero error as well as fudging the initial pressure build and the effect of progressive powders). The final number will be a simple measure of Recoil- lacking in many ways, but at least capable of providing us with a result that doesn't require massive research for each individual weapon. Those interested in a full treatment of Recoil are advised to consult Hatcher's Notebook (ISBN 0-8117-0795-4) one of the definitive works on firearms.
  The simplified Formula (with various constants left intact) are as follows:
       Recoil Impulse (RI) = (bm+(1.75*30/(bl+10))*cm)*15.3*v/(7000*gm*2.2)
    Recoil Energy =   RI^2*1/2*gm*2.2/32.16
   
  bm      Bullet mass in grams
    bl          Barrel Length
    cm        Powder mass in grams if smokeless (divide by four as rule of thumb for black   poweder)
    v           Muzzle Velocity
    gm        Mass of unloaded Weapon in kg (determining recoil for the last shot, or worst   case)
    1.75    Constant for   30-06 rifle gas pressures
It's baffling why people think you have a mild case of undiagnosed OCD.

Quote
By the way- your inability to read the entire website, the leaping to unfounded conclusions based upon your partial reading, and the making up of motivations for me that don't exist is why you're on my ignore list.
I am on your ignore list for the same reason everyone else is on your ignore list.  They aren't slavering fans that think everything you do or say is awesome.

Quote
Here (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2012/06/age-of-heroes-errata.html) is the entire errata for Age of Heroes.  It's basically six typos and one rule section that was left out of the final copy.
Yeah, and it's numbered.  Presumably to match the numbering in the rules themselves.  You know, like the books of statutes one finds in a law library?  Or Advanced Squad Leader, because that reads exactly like a legal document also.  In other words, your idea of what makes a good RPG is that it reads like a legal document and differences of .05 are accounted for.

So, you will have to excuse me if I consider your idea of what constitutes an "asshole DM" or "people worth talking to" is wildly hypocritical.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 20, 2012, 06:35:32 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574310
No. I suspect it would be similar to a .25 pistol round.  But then if you were to put a .223 bullet into a pistol sized cartridge, you'd shrink the actual size of the bullet down.  Not diameter, but length and weight.  You can't really take a .223 bullet and slap it into a pistol cartridge because there wouldn't be any room left for the powder and it would be a wasted bullet.  You might as well throw at the target.

And that's the real difference here.  With pistols, you're getting around 800-1200 fps.  With rifles, you get 2500-3500 fps with the same diameter round.  That's why you see such a vast difference in trauma and penetration.  rifles allow you to have a much bigger cartridge, which in turn allows for more powder which means more velocity.
Agreed.  More appropriate categories might be something like 'Small Calibre Handguns' (.32 and below), 'Medium Calibre Handguns' (up to .45) and 'Large Calibre Handguns' (.45 and above) with similar divisions for rifles.  Range, rate of fire and accuracy would be major differences, with damage bonuses for burst or high velocity (assault rifles v hunting rifles).  I don't see a significant need for much higher levels of detail than that for most games, but I won't say it's absolutely unnecessary for any game.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 20, 2012, 07:05:17 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;574326
Agreed.  More appropriate categories might be something like 'Small Calibre Handguns' (.32 and below), 'Medium Calibre Handguns' (up to .45) and 'Large Calibre Handguns' (.45 and above) with similar divisions for rifles.  Range, rate of fire and accuracy would be major differences, with damage bonuses for burst or high velocity (assault rifles v hunting rifles).  I don't see a significant need for much higher levels of detail than that for most games, but I won't say it's absolutely unnecessary for any game.


What I did was have 2 categories of ammunition: pistol (including sub machine guns) and rifle

Then I have 4 sub-categories of ammunition for both of the above categories:  small, medium, large, and anti-material.  Anti-material is special since it can only be used in rifles or heavy weapons.

I found that is the best way of handling it simply, while allowing for a great range of realistic emulations.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 20, 2012, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574336
Anti-material is special since it can only be used in rifles or heavy weapons.
Heh, if the materiel is a car, a .500 S&W could probably do a good job.  ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 20, 2012, 07:29:23 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574336
What I did was have 2 categories of ammunition: pistol (including sub machine guns) and rifle

Then I have 4 sub-categories of ammunition for both of the above categories:  small, medium, large, and anti-material.  Anti-material is special since it can only be used in rifles or heavy weapons.

I found that is the best way of handling it simply, while allowing for a great range of realistic emulations.


Another way to rate rounds is in relation to their NIJ penetration, since a small round can be every bit as deadly as a large round.

SPOILER (Hover over section below to view.)

Armor Level   Protection
Type I(.22 LR; .380 ACP)
   This armor would protect against 2.6 g (40 gr) .22 Long Rifle Lead Round Nose (LR LRN) bullets at a velocity of 329 m/s (1080 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 6.2 g (95 gr) .380 ACP Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets at a velocity of 322 m/s (1055 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It is no longer part of the standard.
Type IIA(9 mm; .40 S&W; .45 ACP)   
New armor protects against 8 g (124 gr) 9×19mm Parabellum Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets at a velocity of 373 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1225 ft/s ± 30 ft/s); 11.7 g (180 gr) .40 S&W Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets at a velocity of 352 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1155 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 14.9 g (230 gr) .45 ACP Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets at a velocity of 275 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (900 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). Conditioned armor protects against 8 g (124 gr) 9 mm FMJ RN bullets at a velocity of 355 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1165 ft/s ± 30 ft/s); 11.7 g (180 gr) .40 S&W FMJ bullets at a velocity of 325 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1065 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 14.9 g (230 gr) .45 ACP Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets at a velocity of 259 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (850 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Type I].
Type II
(9 mm; .357 Magnum)

   New armor protects against 8 g (124 gr) 9 mm FMJ RN bullets at a velocity of 398 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1305 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 10.2 g (158 gr) .357 Magnum Jacketed Soft Point bullets at a velocity of 436 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1430 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). Conditioned armor protects against 8 g (124 gr) 9 mm FMJ RN bullets at a velocity of 379 m/s ±9.1 m/s (1245 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 10.2 g (158 gr) .357 Magnum Jacketed Soft Point bullets at a velocity of 408 m/s ±9.1 m/s (1340 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I and IIA].
Type IIIA(.357 SIG; .44 Magnum)
   New armor protects against 8.1 g (125 gr) .357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets at a velocity of 448 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1470 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 15.6 g (240 gr) .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets at a velocity of 436 m/s (1430 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). Conditioned armor protects against 8.1 g (125 gr) .357 SIG FMJ Flat Nose (FN) bullets at a velocity of 430 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1410 ft/s ± 30 ft/s) and 15.6 g (240 gr) .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets at a velocity of 408 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (1340 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against most handgun threats, as well as the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, and II].
Type III(Rifles)   
Conditioned armor protects against 9.6 g (148 gr) 7.62×51mm NATO M80 ball bullets at a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, and IIIA].
Type IV(Armor Piercing Rifle)   
Conditioned armor protects against 10.8 g (166 gr) .30-06 Springfield M2 armor-piercing (AP) bullets at a velocity of 878 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2880 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides at least single hit protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, IIIA, and III].


The only differentiation I would add for Sanc's descriptor is that barrel length has a lot to do with initial velocity of a round, and so a 9mm fired from an H&K MP5 has different ballistic qualities from one fired from a Beretta 92, but that becomes a flavor issue that you can decide to take into account if it's the kind of game where it matters.  (And I think that you had something regarding the frame and barrel length in your gun building system you put up in the development threads anyway).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 07:36:49 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;574340

NIJ penetration


You can use that, but you should be aware that armor is not people. For example (using FMJ, but equal construction still provides basically the same result), the .45 ACP goes deeper in people than armor (with some armors, like steel helmets- the reverse is true, if I'm remembering correctly).


Quote from: Panzerkraken;574340
The only differentiation I would add for Sanc's descriptor is that barrel length has a lot to do with initial velocity of a round, and so a 9mm fired from an H&K MP5 has different ballistic qualities from one fired from a Beretta 92,


Not as much as you might think and it depends upon the round in question. There's only 19 m/s difference between the two (at around 400 m/s). Not very significant. Same thing with the .45 ACP.

The reason is that the rounds are designed for the most efficient effect out of the weapon. Thus the design is intended to burn all the powder (simplification warning with that term) in the first 5" of barrel so that the pistol is not over venting gas from the barrel. This prevents too much felt recoil and reduces muzzle flash.

Where you'll see a significant difference is with magnum ammo. These are overloaded rounds intended to get max velocity- and hang the recoil and muzzle flash problems.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 20, 2012, 07:56:49 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574345
You can use that, but you should be aware that armor is not people. For example (using FMJ, but equal construction still provides basically the same result), the .45 ACP goes deeper in people than armor (with some armors, like steel helmets- the reverse is true, if I'm remembering correctly).

Not as much as you might think and it depends upon the round in question. There's only 19 m/s difference between the two (at around 400 m/s). Not very significant. Same thing with the .45 ACP.

The reason is that the rounds are designed for the most efficient effect out of the weapon. Thus the design is intended to burn as to all the powder (simplification warning with that term) in the first 5" of barrel so that the pistol is not over venting gas from the barrel. This prevents too much felt recoil and reduces muzzle flash.

Where you'll see a significant difference is with magnum ammo. These are overloaded rounds intended to get max velocity- and hang the recoil and muzzle flash problems.


For Gleich:

SPOILER (Hover over section below to view.)

I was responding in an oversimplified manner intentionally; if we want to go into accurate modeling, then ANY game system that uses hit points and/or dice to determine relative damage to the human body from firearms or even poking a stick through it (since hydrostatic disruption aside, it's pretty much the same thing) just isn't realistic at all.  For overrealistic systems, I'd direct anyone towards Phoenix Command (which takes into account relative velocity and penetration of rounds based on their shape and the ballistic performance, penetration drop-off being affected by range, and ballistic arc and recoil when accounting for accuracy, and was literally a port of the calculations used in a 1980's military computer simulation of ballistic weapons) or Millenium's End (which should cause anyone exposed to their combat system to shudder) which was based on FBI ballistic impact wound analysis and sought to ensure that anyone who got in a gunfight EVER would probably never want to be there again (although the same could be said for Phoenix Command).

However, the discussion was about light-rule simulation for a supers game, which means that all that minutiae was unnecessary.   In general, my point was that I feel there's enough difference in the performance of SMG's and the frame/barrel of weapons to generally lead that to have an effect on the performance in game terms, rather than simply basing it off the round itself.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 08:00:37 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;574348
However, the discussion was about light-rule simulation for a supers game, which means that all that minutiae was unnecessary.


To you perhaps. But some Superhero genres can go as deeply into the weapons as a Military Thriller.

For myself, I don't want to do work once and then redo it again when I change genres. Thus my conversions for HERO system was designed to range from top end uber Superheroes, all the way down to the most gritty zombie or wild west campaign.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 20, 2012, 08:12:41 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574350
To you perhaps. But some Superhero genres can go as deeply into the weapons as a Military Thriller.

For myself, I don't want to do work once and then redo it again when I change genres. Thus my conversions for HERO system was designed to range from top end uber Superheroes, all the way down to the most gritty zombie or wild west campaign.


As you like.  Usually I stop worrying about ballistic modeling when someone starts talking about how they can shoot 5 Mj blasts from their hands, and I think that systems that continue to do so are focusing on the wrong aspects, but again, that's my opinion.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: One Horse Town on August 20, 2012, 08:16:46 PM
What are these 'guns' you're talking about?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 20, 2012, 08:18:37 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;574358
What are these 'guns' you're talking about?


Just another method of persuasion.  I like to think of them as props for making diplomacy checks on a national level.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 08:22:57 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;574356
As you like.  Usually I stop worrying about ballistic modeling when someone starts talking about how they can shoot 5 Mj blasts from their hands, and I think that systems that continue to do so are focusing on the wrong aspects, but again, that's my opinion.


So the addition of 5 Mj Energy Blasts causes you to increase a conventional firearm's damage above what it should be because... that better... represents it... in a world where people fire 5 Mj energy blasts.

I guess that sort of makes sense.

But from the outside, it appears to me that you put a lot of effort into something (i.e. modeling barrel length)- came up with a result that in truth doesn't model barrel length....

And then called off any futher modeling when that was pointed out because- "what the heck, it's a superhero game".


But I get it. It has to stop somewhere. But I'd rather see a game that had "handgun, SM, Rifle" than what you did here. Or even, given that it's Superheroes- just 'gun'. Nice, simple, to the point and depending upon the comic- completely accurate.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 20, 2012, 08:58:45 PM
Quote from: gleichman;574361
So the addition of 5 Mj Energy Blasts causes you to increase a conventional firearm's damage above what it should be because... that better... represents it... in a world where people fire 5 Mj energy blasts.

I guess that sort of makes sense.

But from the outside, it appears to me that you put a lot of effort into something (i.e. modeling barrel length)- came up with a result that in truth doesn't model barrel length....

And then called off any futher modeling when that was pointed out because- "what the heck, it's a superhero game".


But I get it. It has to stop somewhere. But I'd rather see a game that had "handgun, SM, Rifle" than what you did here. Or even, given that it's Superheroes- just 'gun'. Nice, simple, to the point and depending upon the comic- completely accurate.


All I did was bring in an alternative idea, specifically that you COULD identify a weapon's general damage range by it's NIJ classification, and brought up that the frame and barrel length of the weapon can also affect the performance of the round, using an example that I agree was unresearched and not the best, but it's what came to mind offhand because I deal with both weapons often enough.

As far as calling off the modeling went, I saw we were sliding into technicalities, and I didn't think that this was the right spot for it.  If you want, we can discuss it more over on the development side we can talk about it there some more.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 20, 2012, 09:32:00 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;574371
All I did was bring in an alternative idea, specifically that you COULD identify a weapon's general damage range by it's NIJ classification, and brought up that the frame and barrel length of the weapon can also affect the performance of the round, using an example that I agree was unresearched and not the best, but it's what came to mind offhand because I deal with both weapons often enough.


Don't worry, and I'm sorry. That was more my issue than yours.

It's just that I have more problems with people adding impossible abilities (like siliencers on revolvers and the like) than I do with the abilities not being modeled at all.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 20, 2012, 09:54:19 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;573845
No, it's fucking lazy because it's one of the most easily identifiable (with the exception of an ad hominem), usually only used by people who can't back up their point with real arguments.

You do realize that people are using that exact same logic to say that this site is nothing but a bunch of cunts, right?


ARE we a bunch of cunts? No? Then it's bullshit.

ARE 3.x/Pathfinder players a bunch of cunts? Yes? Then it's valid.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;573845

I already did.  Because that's what people own already and they have fun with it.


They have fun with the gamer because it encourages their nascent cuntishness...therefore they are cunts.


Quote from: Sacrosanct;573845

Seriously dude, all you're doing is validating the victim complex of denners and 4vengers and making it harder on the rest of us.


There's no such thing as "4vengers" as you and Jeff6-5000 describe them. We've established this already.

Now stop being a crybaby.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 20, 2012, 10:05:24 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573736
Not so-much reward as require. The Monster Manual/CR system gives benchmarks you have to meet, in 3e it is way to easy to not meet those benchmarks. Some classes simply can't meet those benchmarks or need a lot of work to meet them, this is a major flaw of 3e. Other classes easily meet or exceed them, this is a more minor flaw. Part of the Social Contract of 3e is everyone has to agree on how powerful characters are allowed to be.


Fine. The game REQUIRES min-maxxing charop bullshit.

Min-maxxers and charoppers are assholes.

3rd edition is a gamer for assholes.

YOU, by virtue of this, are an asshole.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573736
Rules lawyering exist wherever their are rules, but it may be a trade off for a rules heavy system.


What exactly is the REWARD for a rules heavy system?

I mean for someone who ISN'T autistic.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573736
This is a problem with people not any ruleset.


Except when the ruleset REWARDS self-centered cockishness, thereby giving permission to be a self-centered cock, the way 3rd edition D&D does.

Therefore, the people who prefer that ruleset do so because it encourages them to be dicks.


Quote from: Lord Mistborn;573736

I'm not going to say that 3rd edition is for everyone, some people prefer rules light games. 3E is best if everyone is a non-asshole CharOper. High Optimization games are easyer to get into than you think like I've said before a lot of what we do on Minmaxboards is try to find ways to make "bad" classes able to contribute and help new players pick up the class they want to play, we also genraly try to point out stuff that's to broken for 90% of games.


The very fact that this sort of bullshit is even an issue is evidence enough that 3.x is the cunt edition.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 20, 2012, 10:31:04 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574024
I actually prefer 3e to any other game system I've tried.  But I do frequently find myself surrounded by fellow fans that I'd rather not associate with...

I like to play 3e under the old-school social contract.  Yes you can be whatever race/class combination you'd like.  Yes you can be whatever class you wish.  No you cannot use your munchkin build you scraped off of some website, and no you cannot introduce xyz splat book to help you realize your 'character concept'.


Then why play 3.x at all?

Seems like an older edition or Castles & Crusades could just as easily give you the type of game you're looking for AND cut down significantly on the fucktard quotient.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 20, 2012, 10:51:22 PM
Why do I enjoy 3.5 and what can it offer me that earlier editions doesn't?

I prefer the consistency of the rolls, for one.  Since everything (with the exception of percentile checks that I generally avoid using such as miss chance, which I eliminated in favor of bonuses to AC) is based on a d20+class/skill mod+stat mod versus a set target number range, it prevents me from having to think in terms of different sets of odds.  

It also has some general homogenization effects that allow for customization if I so choose.  For instance, a Fighter could be referred to as having Good Attack Bonus, Good Fortitude Save, Poor Reflex and Will Saves, and receives a bonus feat at 1st and every even level afterwards.  I can use those basic building blocks to create different classes and my own prestige classes that can stand up to scrutiny by my (sometimes cunty and judgmental) players.  Not that they need anything other than 'well, that's the way it is' from me as a GM, but I still have to deal with them as friends too.

I like the damage system differences that make a clear identity exist for axes, hammers, and swords without having to resort to a table of ridiculous modifiers to attack versus different types of armor (which most players in those earlier versions ignored anyway).  For real.. what's the difference between a Longsword and a Battleaxe in 1e/2e?  I don't remember exactly, but I think the battleaxe was a little slower in 2e, but i can't be sure of that and I don't have any of those books here to verify it.

The system has its flaws, but I played a LOT of Palladium games in my time, and so I'm already used to modifying whatever system I'm working with, so it doesn't bother me to change it when something doesn't make sense, even situationally.

The other advantage is the sheer amount of splat and source that's been written FOR the system.  The OGL opened the field a lot, and while it's true that the better part of it was absolute Garbage (and not in the Shirly Manson sense), there were some well-written fun adventures (my immediate thoughts go to Troll Lord and their Death on the Treklant trilogy, I loved those) and some decent, not too ridiculous splat that came out.  So rather than buying them and having to translate it from one edition to another, it's just as convenient for me to run the edition it was published under.

Overall though, I still think that ANY system can be used for ANY genre; and be done well, depending on the dedication of the GM to running it.  So the choice of a given system is really more one of feel and GM/Player preference.  

I like running for people and seeing them brought into gaming.  Handled properly, 3.5 is a good source for that; partially because the overwhelming amount of source material that's out there for d20 in general means that there's sure to be something a new player will like.  Sure, the system can be daunting, but when you simplify it down in explanation, it becomes much less so.  One of the earlier examples somewhere was that a new player seemed to shut down when confronted with the sheer volume of information in 3.5/PF.  I think that was more due to overenthusiasm on the part of the Gamer Crew that was trying to introduce that player than it was that the system was too complex.  You can spoon feed a couple ideas at a time to a player and be able to bring them gradually into a full understanding of the game without having to resort to playing an entirely different game using a more simplistic system.

Now, if you feel that it makes me a cunt to accept the game system and use it to try to improve the quality of games that are run under it, then you're obviously some kind of neo-luddite equivalent gamer who's standing in his cave screaming at the Gran Torino type player about how he's getting what he deserves for growing a lawn in the first place.  The games are going to evolve, and at times we have to accept some of the evolution if we want to keep being relevant to the hobby as a whole.  Your viewpoint is as flawed as the one that the CharOp people are using, although I think that the fact that you were completely upfront about your opinions regarding difference is admirable, and I fully expect an expletive-ridden response to my engaging you on the subject.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 21, 2012, 12:15:31 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574409
Then why play 3.x at all?

Seems like an older edition or Castles & Crusades could just as easily give you the type of game you're looking for AND cut down significantly on the fucktard quotient.


Why am I expected to know what the fuck Castles & Crusades even IS?  You ever hear of the OGL?  Single most popular game system in the world, dude.  That's a reasonably solid 'why' right there...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Black Vulmea on August 21, 2012, 12:16:18 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574440
Why am I expected to know what the fuck Castles & Crusades even IS?  You ever hear of the OGL?  Single most popular game system in the world, dude.  That's a reasonably solid 'why' right there...

C&C is OGL.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 21, 2012, 12:17:07 AM
Quote from: Black Vulmea;574441
C&C is OGL.


3e was first, and without it none other would have been.

Ergo the popularity.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 12:20:45 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574401
Fine. The game REQUIRES min-maxxing charop bullshit.

Min-maxxers and charoppers are assholes.

3rd edition is a gamer for assholes.

YOU, by virtue of this, are an asshole.

The troll thinks I'm an asshole how will I survive.

Get your head out of your ass, this is going to be a long post. I know you're barely literate but make an effort to read it all the way through

You're missing something important. A reason that having minmaxers at the table. The fact the concept causes you to foam at the mouth, scream and burst arteries is not a problem, you're just defective as a person.

Why, because you are a minmaxer.

The other people at your table, also minmaxers

When people are allowed choices at character generation they have a strong tendency to pick options they think are optimal. Minmaxing exists in 3e, but also in any other games where people make choices that define their character's abilities. If you do not realize this then whatever bizarre mental defect that makes you spew your bile on the internet must also have tanked your IQ.


If you want to be an adult and have a real conversation about how optimization is a problem I'm willing to have that conversation. Otherwise I will continue to call you out as someone whose only contribution is to lay bare his diseased soul.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574401
What exactly is the REWARD for a rules heavy system?.

3e is actually a very easy system to get into. Why do you think so many games cloned the d20 system. 3e has balance problems but many people, including people on this forum do not seem to think that they are all that problematic.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574401
I mean for someone who ISN'T autistic. Translation: Waaahhh stop liking things I dislike.




Quote from: Declan MacManus;574401
Except when the ruleset REWARDS self-centered cockishness, thereby giving permission to be a self-centered cock, the way 3rd edition D&D does.

Therefore, the people who prefer that ruleset do so because it encourages them to be dicks.




The very fact that this sort of bullshit is even an issue is evidence enough that 3.x is the cunt edition.


Counter-claim: Older editions by encouraging DMs to be more free with the rules created huge numbers of entitled DMs who can not accept their PCs having anything that they did not personally hand to them. The fact that people here are advocating that the DM need not be restrained by the rules of the game or even the social contract empowers bullies. The attitudes of this site and you specifically create a space where people learn borderline abusive behaviors.

Now explain why older editions are not the game of choice for assholes. The fact that this thread exists, that you personally prefer older editions points strongly in my favor asshole.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 21, 2012, 12:25:16 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574336
What I did was have 2 categories of ammunition: pistol (including sub machine guns) and rifle

Then I have 4 sub-categories of ammunition for both of the above categories:  small, medium, large, and anti-material.  Anti-material is special since it can only be used in rifles or heavy weapons.

I found that is the best way of handling it simply, while allowing for a great range of realistic emulations.
I can see that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 21, 2012, 12:50:32 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574445
The troll thinks I'm an asshole how will I survive.

Get your head out of your ass, this is going to be a long post. I know you're barely literate but make an effort to read it all the way through

You're missing something important. A reason that having minmaxers at the table. The fact the concept causes you to foam at the mouth, scream and burst arteries is not a problem, you're just defective as a person.

Why, because you are a minmaxer.

The other people at your table, also minmaxers

When people are allowed choices at character generation they have a strong tendency to pick options they think are optimal. Minmaxing exists in 3e, but also in any other games where people make choices that define their character's abilities. If you do not realize this then whatever bizarre mental defect that makes you spew your bile on the internet must also have tanked your IQ.


But there's a difference between making optimal choices and specifically weaseling every conceivable option from the system.  Take a look at the caricature of Minmax from Goblins.  Or the type of characters that Bob or Brain play in KODT.  You can make optimal choices without expressly finding every exploit in the system.

Quote

If you want to be an adult and have a real conversation about how optimization is a problem I'm willing to have that conversation. Otherwise I will continue to call you out as someone whose only contribution is to lay bare his diseased soul.

3e is actually a very easy system to get into. Why do you think so many games cloned the d20 system. 3e has balance problems but many people, including people on this forum do not seem to think that they are all that problematic.

Counter-claim: Older editions by encouraging DMs to be more free with the rules created huge numbers of entitled DMs who can not accept their PCs having anything that they did not personally hand to them. The fact that people here are advocating that the DM need not be restrained by the rules of the game or even the social contract empowers bullies. The attitudes of this site and you specifically create a space where people learn borderline abusive behaviors.

Now explain why older editions are not the game of choice for assholes. The fact that this thread exists, that you personally prefer older editions points strongly in my favor asshole.


bolding mine.

That's purely false.  You seem stuck in the idea that there's some kind of adversarial interaction between the GM and the players in every game.  For the most part, it's not like that at all.  In fact, for my part, with some rare exceptions, I actually find myself more partisan towards, and bending the rules in support of, the players themselves.  

I roll behind a screen, at the request of my players.  They hate my dice, and as near as I can tell, the feeling is mutual, because I've never seen so much death and destruction as is wrought when I don't hide the rolls.  I had to stop letting monsters crit because the players were getting killed to much in one of my games.  Comment on that all you like, I wasn't in the mood to have a player making a new character after every combat, so I turned the lethality down a bit.

I don't run games at cons or shops, I run for my friends, and occasionally for new players that they bring in.  The very idea that I shouldn't be allowed to fudge the rules to improve the fun that my friends are having is ridiculous.  And even with my bending the rules in their favor at times, they still walk away from the game feeling like they've been challenged and having enjoyed themselves.  Now, does that make me abusive to you?  If so, you have an odd definition of the term.

PS:  I'd avoid doing translations of people's quotes.  Your associate got a warning from the Pundit about it previously.  Yes, at times I snip someone's quote and replace it with something like "Robble Robble Robble" instead of [snip], but I don't misrepresent it under their quote.  Be as insulting as you like in your own words.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Emperor Norton on August 21, 2012, 02:13:19 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;574450
That's purely false.  You seem stuck in the idea that there's some kind of adversarial interaction between the GM and the players in every game.  For the most part, it's not like that at all.  In fact, for my part, with some rare exceptions, I actually find myself more partisan towards, and bending the rules in support of, the players themselves.  


While I'm not going to speak for him, and don't agree with all his points, I think that bolded part was intentional hyperbole and misrepresentation making fun of how ridiculously exaggerated Declan's whole "If you like 3e best you are a cunt" bullshit is.

Honestly, no matter what edition you like best, why exactly are the majority of people here ignoring the ridiculousness of Declan's statements. I don't even LIKE 3e, I just think as a human being, we should strive to not let people stereotype and degrade large groups of other people based on their tastes in pretending to be elves. (I would like to make an aside to say thank you to Sacrosanct for actually being one of the only nonpro3e people to actually call Declan out)

All I can gather from this thread is: Declan if you think 3.x is the edition for assholes, why the hell are you not playing it?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 21, 2012, 02:35:32 AM
Quote from: Emperor Norton;574461
While I'm not going to speak for him, and don't agree with all his points, I think that bolded part was intentional hyperbole and misrepresentation making fun of how ridiculously exaggerated Declan's whole "If you like 3e best you are a cunt" bullshit is.



I would normally agree with you, except that in the thread of their argument so far, directed at others besides Declan, that's exactly the position that's been taken, that the lack of adherence to the RAW is due to a need and desire to maintain total control and bully players.  

OTOH, I have a suspicion, and I don't claim to speak for him, nor approve of the message, that Declan is the one exercising hyperbole throughout the thread.  But I'm relatively new here, so I can't honestly say one way or the other what his actual personality is like.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 07:35:06 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;574450
But there's a difference between making optimal choices and specifically weaseling every conceivable option from the system.  Take a look at the caricature of Minmax from Goblins.  Or the type of characters that Bob or Brain play in KODT.  You can make optimal choices without expressly finding every exploit in the system.


I'm not familiar with KODT but if I remember correct Minmax from Goblins is actually very poorly built. He read the Unearthed Arcana chapter on flaws and then convinced his DM to let him take some increasingly bullshit custom ones. He still willingly chose to be a fighter and none of his huge pile of feats is Improved Trip.
Circling back to the one of my of repeated points that people who are down on the concept of minmaxing are terrible at recognizing minmaxers in play. If minmaxers were anything like what people here are claiming, someone other than me in this thread would be talking about Druids. In real games I have played in "stop minmaxing" always ends with the DM spewing his bile on the poor soul who brought a multiclassed fighter to his table.


Quote from: Panzerkraken;574450
That's purely false.  You seem stuck in the idea that there's some kind of adversarial interaction between the GM and the players in every game.  For the most part, it's not like that at all.  In fact, for my part, with some rare exceptions, I actually find myself more partisan towards, and bending the rules in support of, the players themselves.  

I roll behind a screen, at the request of my players.  They hate my dice, and as near as I can tell, the feeling is mutual, because I've never seen so much death and destruction as is wrought when I don't hide the rolls.  I had to stop letting monsters crit because the players were getting killed to much in one of my games.  Comment on that all you like, I wasn't in the mood to have a player making a new character after every combat, so I turned the lethality down a bit.

I don't run games at cons or shops, I run for my friends, and occasionally for new players that they bring in.  The very idea that I shouldn't be allowed to fudge the rules to improve the fun that my friends are having is ridiculous.  And even with my bending the rules in their favor at times, they still walk away from the game feeling like they've been challenged and having enjoyed themselves.  Now, does that make me abusive to you?  If so, you have an odd definition of the term.


You are not an asshole. I have different ideas about how the game should be played but that doesn't make you an asshole.

The thing is several people in this thread have advocated "punishing" people for minmaxing by changing the rules mid-game to fuck with them. These people are assholes.
You have a different social contract at your table than mine. Neither of our preferred gaming styles are suitable for everyone (or even most people) so we spell things out to new players before they sit down to play.

This is only my experience but

-I have only twice ever had to deal with a problem player as a DM, I have never had any of the problems posters in this thread claim to have.

-I have had so many bad DMs who sound just like posters in this thread.


Quote from: Panzerkraken;574450
PS:  I'd avoid doing translations of people's quotes.  Your associate got a warning from the Pundit about it previously.  Yes, at times I snip someone's quote and replace it with something like "Robble Robble Robble" instead of [snip], but I don't misrepresent it under their quote.  Be as insulting as you like in your own words.


I call what I see. "Stop liking things I dislike" is his only argument.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Dirk Remmecke on August 21, 2012, 08:44:32 AM
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;571365
That A+ thing already over?  :D


A+?
The free RPG from Jeff Moore (http://dreamsanddragons.blogspot.de/)?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 08:50:55 AM
Just for anyone that does not realize it.....



Selecting a longsword over a shortsword is not the same type of optimization as making a Chaos Rage Monk with 6 flurry attacks and the feat pounce to full attack at will.


A few people here seem to equate the two.



And please, I am not singling anyone out, or trying to offend anyone.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 08:55:47 AM
Quote from: Bill;574551
Just for anyone that does not realize it.....



Selecting a longsword over a shortsword is not the same type of optimization as making a Chaos Rage Monk with 6 flurry attacks and the feat pounce to full attack at will.


A few people here seem to equate the two.



And please, I am not singling anyone out, or trying to offend anyone.


>> playing a monk
>> optimization

Oh wait you're serious, Let me laugh even harder.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 08:59:52 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574553
>> playing a monk
>> optimization

Oh wait your serious, Let me laugh even harder.


Not sure what you mean. Are you saying Monks are feeble? :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 21, 2012, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: Bill;574551
Just for anyone that does not realize it.....



Selecting a longsword over a shortsword is not the same type of optimization as making a Chaos Rage Monk with 6 flurry attacks and the feat pounce to full attack at will.


A few people here seem to equate the two.



And please, I am not singling anyone out, or trying to offend anyone.


Like autism, character optimization is a spectrum disorder.  

The thing is, unlike autism, optimization is good to some degree.  Lord Mistborn points that out while a number of posters try to pretend that it doesn't happen in their game.  

Choosing a longsword over a dagger is usually a form of optimization.  Choosing classes and feats that synergize together is a form of optimization.  Optimization is good until someone becomes 'too good' compared to the rest of the party.  Optimizing even a single aspect of a character to a too high degree can cause problems - and if it does, it needs to be addressed.

For example, if a party of 4 people has an AC of 16, 18, 20 and 44, the person with the 44 is likely to cause problems.  Any monster that can hit the high AC can't miss the other characters, except on a natural 1.  Now the person with the 44 AC may have had to expend lots of resources into achieving it - they may not be good at hitting things, and their saves might be crap, but against anything in the MM that relies on hitting hard with a club, they're pretty close to immune.  Effectively, they require completley different challenges than the rest of the party.  That's usually bad, and it usually breaks the game.  

But general optimization is usually good, especially if everyone does it.  Optimization that results in effective characters results in a party being able to effectively overcome challenges without relying on DM pity.  That's empowering and satisfying.  If people don't want to optimize they have to make decisions that make it harder to achieve success as their character (assuming the game offers any decision points).  That's just as likely to break the game the other way - anything that is fun for the rest of the group results in the 'sub-optimal one' being killed.  The next time you hear a player ask to play a character with a 2 in every stat, remember that is the opposite of Optimization.  

Some optimization is good.  Characters that are vastly more effective than their companions cause problems.  It is possible to optimize without making the other characters feel ineffective or rendering them useless.  Unless that other player is a straight Fighter - but then, even minimally optimized members of the other classes, even without prestige classes, tend to have that effect.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 09:03:57 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;574557
Like autism, character optimization is a spectrum disorder.  

The thing is, unlike autism, optimization is good to some degree.  Lord Mistborn points that out while a number of posters try to pretend that it doesn't happen in their game.  

Choosing a longsword over a dagger is usually a form of optimization.  Choosing classes and feats that synergize together is a form of optimization.  Optimization is good until someone becomes 'too good' compared to the rest of the party.  Optimizing even a single aspect of a character to a too high degree can cause problems - and if it does, it needs to be addressed.

For example, if a party of 4 people has an AC of 16, 18, 20 and 44, the person with the 44 is likely to cause problems.  Any monster that can hit the high AC can't miss the other characters, except on a natural 1.  Now the person with the 44 AC may have had to expend lots of resources into achieving it - they may not be good at hitting things, and their saves might be crap, but against anything in the MM that relies on hitting hard with a club, they're pretty close to immune.  Effectively, they require completley different challenges than the rest of the party.  That's usually bad, and it usually breaks the game.  

But general optimization is usually good, especially if everyone does it.  Optimization that results in effective characters results in a party being able to effectively overcome challenges without relying on DM pity.  That's empowering and satisfying.  If people don't want to optimize they have to make decisions that make it harder to achieve success as their character (assuming the game offers any decision points).  That's just as likely to break the game the other way - anything that is fun for the rest of the group results in the 'sub-optimal one' being killed.  The next time you hear a player ask to play a character with a 2 in every stat, remember that is the opposite of Optimization.  

Some optimization is good.  Characters that are vastly more effective than their companions cause problems.  It is possible to optimize without making the other characters feel ineffective or rendering them useless.  Unless that other player is a straight Fighter - but then, even minimally optimized members of the other classes, even without prestige classes, tend to have that effect.


I did play an archer once with a 3 dexterity. Was quite fun.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 21, 2012, 09:06:14 AM
Quote from: Bill;574556
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying Monks are feeble? :)


Yes, he is.  

Monks have an interesting flavor, but in 3.x, they're impossible to make terribly effective.  Unless the Prestige Class you're making up on the fly is a huge power-up, monks end up sucking in play.  The reasons for it are very different from a Fighter, but it works out about the same.

First off, the monk has multiple-attribute-dependency - it's hard to make an effective character when every stat needs to be high.  Assuming sacrifices need to be made, you have to give up something important.  Wisdom, Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution are all important.  Because the monk has the same BAB as a cleric, they're not very good at hitting things, and they're worse at things like Grapple or Disarm that rely on opposed attack rolls.  None of the monk 'exotic weapons' are very good, so they're useful only for overcoming DR.  

Monks look like they have a lot going for them, but in play they just never really shine - not even as a 'mage killer'.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 09:23:11 AM
Quote from: Bill;574556
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying Monks are feeble? :)


Monk is regarded as one of the worst classes in the PHB.

-You need good stats across 4 abillity scores, the huge pile of abilities of your class fail to keep up with someone who has weapons and armor much less cast spells.
-You are expected to be on the front lines but you only have 3/4 bab, flurry lowers your already bad bab and requires you to stand still not that you can kill anything because unarmed damage progression is worse than power attack which you can't even do with unarmed strikes.
-You have a skill list but you as stated before need 4 stats an Int is not one of them so don't think you can sub for a rogue in any scenario.
-As far as I know no build ever taken more than 4 levels in monk, which is worse than even the fighter which people almost always ditch at 6.
-As an cherry on the shit sundae strictly by raw Monks are not proficient with their unarmed strikes.
-Knowing that the Monk is a bad class is literaly optimization 101

So yeah like I said before anti-optimization crackdowns are always from people who don't understand the game and are driven by knee-jerk reactions.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 09:24:11 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;574557
Like autism, character optimization is a spectrum disorder.  

The thing is, unlike autism, optimization is good to some degree.  Lord Mistborn points that out while a number of posters try to pretend that it doesn't happen in their game.  

Choosing a longsword over a dagger is usually a form of optimization.  Choosing classes and feats that synergize together is a form of optimization.  Optimization is good until someone becomes 'too good' compared to the rest of the party.  Optimizing even a single aspect of a character to a too high degree can cause problems - and if it does, it needs to be addressed.

For example, if a party of 4 people has an AC of 16, 18, 20 and 44, the person with the 44 is likely to cause problems.  Any monster that can hit the high AC can't miss the other characters, except on a natural 1.  Now the person with the 44 AC may have had to expend lots of resources into achieving it - they may not be good at hitting things, and their saves might be crap, but against anything in the MM that relies on hitting hard with a club, they're pretty close to immune.  Effectively, they require completley different challenges than the rest of the party.  That's usually bad, and it usually breaks the game.  

But general optimization is usually good, especially if everyone does it.  Optimization that results in effective characters results in a party being able to effectively overcome challenges without relying on DM pity.  That's empowering and satisfying.  If people don't want to optimize they have to make decisions that make it harder to achieve success as their character (assuming the game offers any decision points).  That's just as likely to break the game the other way - anything that is fun for the rest of the group results in the 'sub-optimal one' being killed.  The next time you hear a player ask to play a character with a 2 in every stat, remember that is the opposite of Optimization.  

Some optimization is good.  Characters that are vastly more effective than their companions cause problems.  It is possible to optimize without making the other characters feel ineffective or rendering them useless.  Unless that other player is a straight Fighter - but then, even minimally optimized members of the other classes, even without prestige classes, tend to have that effect.


+1 to this
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574568
Monk is regarded as one of the worst classes in the PHB.

-You need good stats across 4 abillity scores, the huge pile of abilities of your class fail to keep up with someone who has weapons and armor much less cast spells.
-You are expected to be on the front lines but you only have 3/4 bab, flurry lowers your already bad bab and requires you to stand still not that you can kill anything because unarmed damage progression is worse than power attack which you can't even do with unarmed strikes.
-You have a skill list but you as stated before need 4 stats an Int is not one of them so don't think you can sub for a rogue in any scenario.
-As far as I know no build ever taken more than 4 levels in monk, which is worse than even the fighter which people almost always ditch at 6.
-As an cherry on the shit sundae strictly by raw Monks are not proficient with their unarmed strikes.
-Knowing that the Monk is a bad class is literaly optimization 101

So yeah like I said before anti-optimization crackdowns are always from people who don't understand the game and are driven by knee-jerk reactions.


Wow.  I'm not even a fan of 3e and even I know about the invincible monk (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Invincible_Monk_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_Build%29).  How is the weakest class also the most powerful?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 09:53:47 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;574560
Yes, he is.  

Monks have an interesting flavor, but in 3.x, they're impossible to make terribly effective.  Unless the Prestige Class you're making up on the fly is a huge power-up, monks end up sucking in play.  The reasons for it are very different from a Fighter, but it works out about the same.

First off, the monk has multiple-attribute-dependency - it's hard to make an effective character when every stat needs to be high.  Assuming sacrifices need to be made, you have to give up something important.  Wisdom, Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution are all important.  Because the monk has the same BAB as a cleric, they're not very good at hitting things, and they're worse at things like Grapple or Disarm that rely on opposed attack rolls.  None of the monk 'exotic weapons' are very good, so they're useful only for overcoming DR.  

Monks look like they have a lot going for them, but in play they just never really shine - not even as a 'mage killer'.


Never shine? Monks have a better reflex save than a Druid! ....ok...reaching a bit there

Monks kick ass at Monk Plot lines in the campaign!

'Monk feebleness' is an ongoing joke in one of my gaming groups, but we still enjoy playing them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 21, 2012, 10:00:36 AM
Simple quick question here. How does one one arrive at this:

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574445
3e is actually a very easy system to get into. Why do you think so many games cloned the d20 system. 3e has balance problems but many people, including people on this forum do not seem to think that they are all that problematic.

 

After having said this:

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574445

Let me spell this out one more time.

With comprehensive rules comes complexity, with options comes minmaxing, those who are not prepared to accept that should not play 3e.


Well?






Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574445


Counter-claim: Older editions by encouraging DMs to be more free with the rules created huge numbers of entitled DMs who can not accept their PCs having anything that they did not personally hand to them. The fact that people here are advocating that the DM need not be restrained by the rules of the game or even the social contract empowers bullies. The attitudes of this site and you specifically create a space where people learn borderline abusive behaviors.

Now explain why older editions are not the game of choice for assholes. The fact that this thread exists, that you personally prefer older editions points strongly in my favor asshole.


Anyone claiming that a DM does not have an end of the bargain to hold up in the social contract is one that is most likely, without any players. Who has said this?

No matter what edition is being played, an agreement from all parties to be reasonable,mature, and treat one another fairly should be a part of the social contract right?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 10:04:30 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574575
Wow.  I'm not even a fan of 3e and even I know about the invincible monk (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Invincible_Monk_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_Build%29).  How is the weakest class also the most powerful?


That build is bad and whoever made it should feel bad. If you optimize for defense you only make sure you die last and your party will hate you for not doing anything but occupying a 5ft square.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 10:10:03 AM
Here is something that might entertain people who enjoy optimization.


In a pathfinder game I play in, one player has a Witch. When he reached level 10, he started taking levels in Cavalier.

What could be more Uber than a Witch Cavalier?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 21, 2012, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: Bill;574580
Here is something that might entertain people who enjoy optimization.


In a pathfinder game I play in, one player has a Witch. When he reached level 10, he started taking levels in Cavalier.

What could be more Uber than a Witch Cavalier?


Which cavalier was that? ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 10:14:13 AM
Quote from: Bill;574580
Here is something that might entertain people who enjoy optimization.


In a pathfinder game I play in, one player has a Witch. When he reached level 10, he started taking levels in Cavalier.

What could be more Uber than a Witch Cavalier?


For the love of God why do that? Were they going for a Warhammer Fantasy thing and making a messed up Witch Hunter.:)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 10:17:42 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574581
Which cavalier was that? ;)


I am no powergamer, but even I had to laugh when his Witch tried to swing a sword at an Antipaladin. I think the villain could have sat down and enjoyed a sandwich while the Witch..I mean..Cavalier hurt himself trying to strike the Antipaladin.

It was great roleplay, but still funny.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 21, 2012, 10:19:58 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574575
Wow.  I'm not even a fan of 3e and even I know about the invincible monk (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Invincible_Monk_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_Build%29).  How is the weakest class also the most powerful?


I didn't read the whole thing, but it uses Vow of Poverty.  Vow of Poverty means you give up magical items, but it gives you bonuses that are at least as good as the value of magical items that you've given up.  Considering that all 'martial' classes but the monk rely on magical weapoins, they're the only ones who really benefit from it.  

The Vow of Poverty was a major problem in a low-magic game I was running based on Renaissance Italy (with major modifications).  It would have been a good campaign, I think, if it hadn't been for the VoP Monk failing to understand the flavor I was trying to go for.  But pretty much everything in Book of Exalted Deeds is pretty stupid.  They have poison, but it's good poison, so that makes it all right.  Basically they took everything that Evil Characters are expected to do, multiplied it by -1 and called it a 'good thing'.

Edit - And I don't have my books with me, but the author seems to be suggesting that this is the character before magical items (which he can't have because of the Vow of Poverty) and that he use his five awesome attacks, even though he's taken a Vow of Peace.  Maybe I'm confusing it with Vow of Non-Violence, but I'm pretty sure Vow of Peace makes it so you can't attack anything.  If you won't fight, it doesn't matter if nobody can hit you (and they can - they just need a Nat 20) - you stand around while your party gets slaughtered and then hope you're allowed to run away before they manage to incapacitate you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kaelik on August 21, 2012, 10:22:06 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574575
Wow.  I'm not even a fan of 3e and even I know about the invincible monk (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Invincible_Monk_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_Build%29).  How is the weakest class also the most powerful?


Probably because that's a really shitty build, and the Monk isn't very powerful.

I mean: 1) He can't actually do much of anything to level appropriate threats.

2) He isn't contributing much of anything in defeating enemies, only surviving them, since he can't give his AC to the rest of the party, that means the enemies still just end up killing the rest of the party, and then leaving.

3) Acid Fog. What does he do? Answer: Die.

4) That's level 20. At level 20 you might face 4 Tarrasques a day, and the Tarrasque can hit that AC and regen through the damage of 4 of those at a time. And anything with a fly speed and a ranged attack can just fly, ignore the thing, and kill the rest of the party, then take it's time killing the Monk, and it's totally useless, because it has to use it's SR and try to make a save to prevent the Wizard from even casting fly on it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 21, 2012, 10:26:59 AM
Quote from: Kaelik;574587

4) That's level 20. At level 20 you might face 4 Tarrasques a day, and the Tarrasque can hit that AC and regen through the damage of 4 of those at a time.


4 Tarrasques a day?

Now you're just being silly.  That sounds like the type of encounter you pull out in NWN.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 10:27:29 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;574578
Simple quick question here. How does one one arrive at this:

After having said this:

Well?


Knowing enough about 3e to play a casual game is easy, sometimes people make mistakes like play monks, cast Planar Binding, or die to closet trolls, but many DMs have the players fight classed NPCs most of the time. which is easy mode. The worst balance problems in 3e are at higher level and many people rarely get that far above 6.

People played Pathfinder when it came out even though it nerfed fighters and buffed spellcasters.

Like I've said before 3e has a lot of options, people tend to like options, the more options there are the more optimization is possible.

The reason the CharOp is refined to a science in 3e is less about anything in the system that it is about the internet. During the 2e era web 2.0 was in its infancy and TSR made an effort to shut down D&D sites. WotC devoted a sub-forum to CharOpers. It's not like I ever poured over sourcebooks for hours, I mostly just use basic principles I learned from lurking.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 10:29:15 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;574582
For the love of God why do that? Were they going for a Warhammer Fantasy thing and making a messed up Witch Hunter.:)


Where to start...

Gabriel the Witch (He does not like to be called a Warlock) is a very chaotic fellow. He is the type to gamble it all to win big and usually finds a way to survive when it all crashes down. I believe his family history is the reason he began focusing on Cavalier. Much of his backstory is secret. His witch familiar is also his mount, a giant spider. He is the kind of guy that will leap into a planar rift without hesitation, and show up later with a smug look on his face, somehow cheating death. I have never seen a player use cleverness and his characters abilities more effectively in a game. It remains to be seen if his newly found Lawful Good code of honor will last, considering he is essentially the 'Lord of Chaos'
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 10:34:23 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;574589
4 Tarrasques a day?

Now you're just being silly.  That sounds like the type of encounter you pull out in NWN.

Seeing as how the tarrasque is a unique creature, right?  I guess it's just one more point to chaulk up under the "Munchkins don't care about actual campaign worlds or characters, it's all about maximizing the numbers even if it makes no sense at all from a continuity standpoint."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 10:50:10 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;574418

Now, if you feel that it makes me a cunt to accept the game system and use it to try to improve the quality of games that are run under it, then you're obviously some kind of neo-luddite equivalent gamer who's standing in his cave screaming at the Gran Torino type player about how he's getting what he deserves for growing a lawn in the first place.  The games are going to evolve, and at times we have to accept some of the evolution if we want to keep being relevant to the hobby as a whole.  Your viewpoint is as flawed as the one that the CharOp people are using, although I think that the fact that you were completely upfront about your opinions regarding difference is admirable, and I fully expect an expletive-ridden response to my engaging you on the subject.


It DOES make you a cunt, in fact...because of Castles & Crusades.

The existence of Castles & Crusades, which offers everything you've cited in your post, sans the aspie, rules-lawyering powergamer bullshit compeltely invalidates your argument. If you played 3.x for any of your stated reasons, then you would be playing C&C or Microlite 20 instead.

No you play 3.x because either:

A) You're a soulless robot who likes numbers more than people.

B) You're a selfish asshole who likes to derail your friends games to show that you're swinging the biggest rules cock.

or C) Some combination of both.

God, you make me sick. Why are you such an asshole?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 10:51:24 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574440
Why am I expected to know what the fuck Castles & Crusades even IS?  You ever hear of the OGL?  Single most popular game system in the world, dude.  That's a reasonably solid 'why' right there...


So MOST gamers are cunts, then.

I suspected as much.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 10:55:26 AM
Really Declan, all you're doing is coming off as an irrational idiot who should be on medication.  It's just a game dude.  To borrow from Stormy, "Show me where 3e touched you."

Because for realz dood, do you actually read what you type?  Normal people don't react that way.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 21, 2012, 11:00:36 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574595
A) You're a soulless robot who likes numbers more than people.


I like numbers more than I like Declan ManManus.  I guess it's fair to say I like numbers more than some people.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 11:04:36 AM
Quote from: Bill;574593
Where to start...

Gabriel the Witch (He does not like to be called a Warlock) is a very chaotic fellow. He is the type to gamble it all to win big and usually finds a way to survive when it all crashes down. I believe his family history is the reason he began focusing on Cavalier. Much of his backstory is secret. His witch familiar is also his mount, a giant spider. He is the kind of guy that will leap into a planar rift without hesitation, and show up later with a smug look on his face, somehow cheating death. I have never seen a player use cleverness and his characters abilities more effectively in a game. It remains to be seen if his newly found Lawful Good code of honor will last, considering he is essentially the 'Lord of Chaos'


Giant Spider mount now that's cool! Was he a Drow? If so it would be pretty fitting.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 11:07:33 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574595
It DOES make you a cunt, in fact...because of Castles & Crusades.

The existence of Castles & Crusades, which offers everything you've cited in your post, sans the aspie, rules-lawyering powergamer bullshit compeltely invalidates your argument. If you played 3.x for any of your stated reasons, then you would be playing C&C or Microlite 20 instead.

No you play 3.x because either:

A) You're a soulless robot who likes numbers more than people.

B) You're a selfish asshole who likes to derail your friends games to show that you're swinging the biggest rules cock.

or C) Some combination of both.

God, you make me sick. Why are you such an asshole?


You know what. From now on, I'm just going to assume you're trolling. I would prefer to think you're a masterful Poe trying to discredit the anti-3e folks than think that you are actually laying out the contents of your warped and defective mind for all to read. Keep on trolling asshole.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 21, 2012, 11:14:35 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574597
Really Declan, all you're doing is coming off as an irrational idiot who should be on medication.  It's just a game dude.  To borrow from Stormy, "Show me where 3e touched you."

Because for realz dood, do you actually read what you type?  Normal people don't react that way.


No fair, you're making me reconsider my hatred of you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574445
When people are allowed choices at character generation they have a strong tendency to pick options they think are optimal. Minmaxing exists in 3e, but also in any other games where people make choices that define their character's abilities. If you do not realize this then whatever bizarre mental defect that makes you spew your bile on the internet must also have tanked your IQ.

There is a whole sight of fucking difference between putting the 15 you randomly rolled into your classes prime attribute, or choosing a class base on what ability scores you randomly generated, and painstakingly crafting a "build" culled from several different books. You damn well know it, otherwise you would be playing 1st edition.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574445
If you want to be an adult and have a real conversation about how optimization is a problem I'm willing to have that conversation. Otherwise I will continue to call you out as someone whose only contribution is to lay bare his diseased soul.

Games that heavily encourage optimization, such as WotC D&D, create an environment in which there is only one RIGHT answer. The 3.x player who wants to play a melee powerhouse will either be a Druid or a Cleric, and their highest score WILL be wisdom. Always.

In TSR D&D, there are no right or wrong choices oin character generation. A Fighter with an 18 STR has an edge over a Fighter with a 12 STR, but ultimately it is up to the players which will survive to named levels.

The reason why charop is bad, is because it makes the game more about what decisions you make outside of the game than the decisions you make at the table, which in turn disengages you from the gameworld.

Also, it creates an exclusionary culture to the game. Suddenly, newer and more casual players need to be able to compete in a rules mastery arms race or they have no agency in the campaign.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574445
3e is actually a very easy system to get into. Why do you think so many games cloned the d20 system. 3e has balance problems but many people, including people on this forum do not seem to think that they are all that problematic.

Stop bringing up balance. This thread doesn't give a fuck about balance in 3.x. This thread only cares about the fact that you choose your preferred game on the basis of which allows you to be a self-serving asshat who likes to bully his friends.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574445
Counter-claim: Older editions by encouraging DMs to be more free with the rules created huge numbers of entitled DMs who can not accept their PCs having anything that they did not personally hand to them. The fact that people here are advocating that the DM need not be restrained by the rules of the game or even the social contract empowers bullies. The attitudes of this site and you specifically create a space where people learn borderline abusive behaviors.

Now explain why older editions are not the game of choice for assholes. The fact that this thread exists, that you personally prefer older editions points strongly in my favor asshole.

Everything you assert hinges on the false notion that GM's have captive audiences, when they don't. To players of older editions, having a prick GM isn't the end of the world, because we can and DO simply get up and walk away. That is the social contract of gaming enforced.

Compare this with players of WotC D&D, who act like Jody Foster in "The Accused" whenever the GM makes a call they don't like.

Also note that TSR D&D games didn't support rules lawyering, munchkin bullshit, which are widely recognized as asshole behaviors, whereas WotC D&D practically fellates charoppers. So again, the asshole quotient is significantly lower.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 21, 2012, 11:22:03 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;574557

The thing is, unlike autism, optimization is good to some degree.


Autism has its benefits.  My son can do puzzles carboard-side-up, for example.  And he'll never worry about what the popular girls at school think of him...

:)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 21, 2012, 11:25:53 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574595
It DOES make you a cunt, in fact...because of Castles & Crusades.

The existence of Castles & Crusades, which offers everything you've cited in your post, sans the aspie, rules-lawyering powergamer bullshit compeltely invalidates your argument. If you played 3.x for any of your stated reasons, then you would be playing C&C or Microlite 20 instead.


I will have to check C&C out.  Didn't care for Microlite 20, though.  I've looked at a few other minimalized d20 systems, but haven't ever tried one on for size.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574597
Really Declan, all you're doing is coming off as an irrational idiot who should be on medication.  It's just a game dude.  To borrow from Stormy, "Show me where 3e touched you."

Because for realz dood, do you actually read what you type?  Normal people don't react that way.


Really? I'm the problem?

I'm not the one who turned D&D into Magic: the Gathering.

I'm not the one who fostered the bullshit entitlement that WotC D&D players have.

I'm not the one that created a barrier to entry for the general populace by building a wall of system mastery and metagame jargon.

I'm merely the one pointing out that 3rd edition is built around rewarding shitty gamer stereotypes, and therefore the people that prefer that edition ARE those shitty gamer stereotypes.

You might feel the need to jump to these peoples' defense, but when it comes down to it, you would enjoy playing at my table more than Lord Mistborn's, and you know it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574618
I will have to check C&C out.  Didn't care for Microlite 20, though.  I've looked at a few other minimalized d20 systems, but haven't ever tried one on for size.


C&C isn't minimized.

It's a slightly different take on 3rd edition without Feats, Skills or Prestige Classes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 11:33:58 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;574601
Giant Spider mount now that's cool! Was he a Drow? If so it would be pretty fitting.


He is human, possibly a dash of fae ancestery. However, despite his claims of having no ties to Lolth, he does have a spider familiar, and once he cheated death with a mysterious spiderweb cocoon....veeeeery suspicious :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 11:36:44 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574621
Really? I'm the problem?.


You're part of the problem, yes.  When you say things like you've said?  Then yes.  For several reasons

1. It's a lazy fallacy that you should know better than to use
2. It give legitimacy to all the people who whine about being attacked
3. It feeds the victim complex of certain folks and something they can point to as "see!  This is how fucked up they are!"
4. It makes the rest of us who prefer older D&D a bad name, and thus makes it harder to let people know that no, not all of us are raging haters of anyone who dares play a WoTC edition of D&D.

Sorry, but I call it like I see it.  Whenever Lord Misty or MGuy resort to bullshit 1st grade debate tactics, I'll call them on it.  But I'm going to call you on the same shit.  If anything, all this thread proves is that yes, there are assholes in every edition.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 11:49:00 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574629

1. It's a lazy fallacy that you should know better than to use


Actually, you have yet to prove that anything I've said is fallacious.

Harsh? Yes. Broad? Yes. But you haven't proven that I'm WRONG.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;574629
2. It give legitimacy to all the people who whine about being attacked


So?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;574629
3. It feeds the victim complex of certain folks and something they can point to as "see!  This is how fucked up they are!"


I think I've done a good job thus far of showing exactly how and why 3.x players are terrible human beings.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;574629
4. It makes the rest of us who prefer older D&D a bad name, and thus makes it harder to let people know that no, not all of us are raging haters of anyone who dares play a WoTC edition of D&D.


It's not MY problem if YOU are feeling self-concious about who you game with and what you play.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 21, 2012, 12:03:49 PM
Originally Posted by Panzerkraken  
Now, if you feel that it makes me a cunt to accept the game system and use it to try to improve the quality of games that are run under it, then you're obviously some kind of neo-luddite equivalent gamer who's standing in his cave screaming at the Gran Torino type player about how he's getting what he deserves for growing a lawn in the first place. The games are going to evolve, and at times we have to accept some of the evolution if we want to keep being relevant to the hobby as a whole. Your viewpoint is as flawed as the one that the CharOp people are using, although I think that the fact that you were completely upfront about your opinions regarding difference is admirable, and I fully expect an expletive-ridden response to my engaging you on the subject. [/QUOTE]


I have no intention of calling you names but the concepts of 'evolution' and 'being relevant to the hobby' are crocks of shit as concepts go.

Roleplaying games are hobby engaged in for fun & enjoyment. Games that are enjoyed are not anything like productivity software that must be kept up to date lest it no longer function on the OS.

People still find chess to be an engaging game despite its age. Classical music is no longer 'relevant' to the current music scene but that doesn't stop recordings of pieces over 200 years old from being listened to and enjoyed by new generations.

As far as evolution is concerned, it isn't always a positive thing. D&D began as a game taking place in the imagination of the participants, with a few scribbles on note paper serving as a character sheet. The modern game is character sheet focused around scaling numbers and pre-chosen menu options .

Anyone is free to prefer one type of game over the other but they are not really the same thing despite sharing a brand name. If evolution decreases the impact of imagination on gameplay then I will gladly return to the trees.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 21, 2012, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574638
Actually, you have yet to prove that anything I've said is fallacious.

Harsh? Yes. Broad? Yes. But you haven't proven that I'm WRONG.


Why would anyone care to prove you wrong?  You haven't said anything to prove you're right, either.  You've made apparently unfounded accusations and expect the rest of the world to explain why you're an idiot and/or an asshole?  

I'm sorry, but I just don't have enough time to give you the thorough explanation you so clearly deserve.  

But that's okay.  You're entitled to your stupid opinion and your offensive behavior.  I've seen worse on the web.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 12:08:23 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;574645
 I've seen worse on the web.


Thankfully, I've managed to avoid goatse and tubgirl and the scarring that comes along with it.


What?  That's what you were talking about as "worse", right?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 12:10:08 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574638
Actually, you have yet to prove that anything I've said is fallacious..


Because I'm feeling generous:

Affirming the consequent/Denying the antecedent

    Affirming the consequent and Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
        Affirming the consequent Example:

            Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.
            Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough. The argument treats having the flu as a necessary condition of coughing; in fact, having the flu is a sufficient condition of coughing, but it is not necessary to have the flu for one to cough.
            Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
            Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).

    Denying the antecedent Example

            Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
            Problem: Rain is a sufficient condition of cloudiness, but cloudy conditions do not necessarily imply rain.

Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Imperator on August 21, 2012, 12:20:31 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574595
It DOES make you a cunt, in fact...because of Castles & Crusades.

The existence of Castles & Crusades, which offers everything you've cited in your post, sans the aspie, rules-lawyering powergamer bullshit compeltely invalidates your argument. If you played 3.x for any of your stated reasons, then you would be playing C&C or Microlite 20 instead.

No you play 3.x because either:

A) You're a soulless robot who likes numbers more than people.

B) You're a selfish asshole who likes to derail your friends games to show that you're swinging the biggest rules cock.

or C) Some combination of both.

God, you make me sick. Why are you such an asshole?


Wow, you are the worst stereotype of gamer I have seen in a looooong time. And being a true asshole here takes dedication.

Seriously, "if you play Game X is because you are a terrible person." It is down there with such jewels of human thought as, for example, guessing the sexual orientation of a person because of the console this person buys. You are on par with such luminaries as the racist homophobe teenagers that you may find in Xbox Live playing Halo.

Kudos to you. You are the King of Lawncrappers.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574613
Games that heavily encourage optimization, such as WotC D&D, create an environment in which there is only one RIGHT answer. The 3.x player who wants to play a melee powerhouse will either be a Druid or a Cleric, and their highest score WILL be wisdom. Always.

In TSR D&D, there are no right or wrong choices oin character generation. A Fighter with an 18 STR has an edge over a Fighter with a 12 STR, but ultimately it is up to the players which will survive to named levels.

You are a fucking idiot. I have found munchkins playing all kinds of games, from AD&D to RQ to Prince Valiant, even. One thing is to say that muchkins may prefer a more complex ruleset (which matches my experience) and another thing is to say that a game WILL CHANGE YOUR BRAIN.

Quote
The reason why charop is bad, is because it makes the game more about what decisions you make outside of the game than the decisions you make at the table, which in turn disengages you from the gameworld.

That is bad IF IMMERSION IS YOUR GOAL. It happens to be mine, but I understand that other people may prefer other things without being assholes for that.

Quote
Also, it creates an exclusionary culture to the game. Suddenly, newer and more casual players need to be able to compete in a rules mastery arms race or they have no agency in the campaign.

I think that the exclusionary culture has more to do with the fundamentalism of places like this than the complexity of the rules. Morons like you do little to get new blood to the hobby.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 12:26:34 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574613
There is a whole sight of fucking difference between putting the 15 you randomly rolled into your classes prime attribute, or choosing a class base on what ability scores you randomly generated, and painstakingly crafting a "build" culled from several different books. You damn well know it, otherwise you would be playing 1st edition.


Of cours I know that. Most people are naive optimizers, not every 3e player plans every feat spell and level out in advanced, most just work through the application of general principals that's what I do. Splatbooks are not the huge problem in 3e. I think most people who buy them are more interested in having some new options to keep thing fun and fresh than to digging through the thing to find something broken.


Quote from: Declan MacManus;574613
Games that heavily encourage optimization, such as WotC D&D, create an environment in which there is only one RIGHT answer. The 3.x player who wants to play a melee powerhouse will either be a Druid or a Cleric, and their highest score WILL be wisdom. Always.


The Druid is kinda too good from most games due to automatically getting a polymorph effect that lasts all day. The Cleric on the other hand isn't out-fighting fighters in my tables or most tables really, CharOpers tend to preach the class so hard because in addition to fighting almost as well a Fighters they can do other things due to spells.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574613
In TSR D&D, there are no right or wrong choices oin character generation. A Fighter with an 18 STR has an edge over a Fighter with a 12 STR, but ultimately it is up to the players which will survive to named levels.


Their are definitely "wrong" choices in 3e and this is a problem with the game but a Str 6 fighter in other editions could be a "wrong" choice in the same way, however "right" choices in 3e are harder to define. Unless you game with really hardcore minmaxers than you can just take feats that enable what ever you want to do.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574613
The reason why charop is bad, is because it makes the game more about what decisions you make outside of the game than the decisions you make at the table, which in turn disengages you from the gameworld.

This is wrong.

Stormwind Fallacy, learn it.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574613
Also, it creates an exclusionary culture to the game. Suddenly, newer and more casual players need to be able to compete in a rules mastery arms race or they have no agency in the campaign.


The is covered under the general rule of not being a dick. The reason I go on about class balance is that it's at its worst at low optimization. If a first timer thinks that bears are neat a has his Druid turn into a bear while the other player is a monk it's not going to be a good gaming session.

Also how is it exclusionary if a new player can look up a build online and come to a table and do just as well as the player who spent 3 hours making his character.

One more thing how is it worse for someone to roll bad on his random stats and be locked out of the game than a person who made a bad character accidentally to be just as locked out of the game.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 21, 2012, 12:42:05 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574623
C&C isn't minimized.

It's a slightly different take on 3rd edition without Feats, Skills or Prestige Classes.


Not to be an ass, but if the net size is the same, I wonder what they added to replace all that they took out?

It's rhetorical, I'll go find out.

:)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 21, 2012, 12:51:50 PM
The Thunderdomes have certainly proven that 3e will always remain as my least favorite edition.

This forum needs a bored/sleeping smilie.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 12:58:48 PM
Quote from: Rum Cove;574699
The Thunderdomes have certainly proven that 3e will always remain as my least favorite edition.

This forum needs a bored/sleeping smilie.


I haven't even read those threads because that's not how I play D&D.  One vs one arena combat or whatever?  Nah, so it's not really relevant to how I judge the game.

That all being said, I already knew 3e is me least favorite edition.  More power to people who like it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 01:06:12 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574705
That all being said, I already knew 3e is me least favorite edition.  More power to people who like it.


Even over 4e. I'm shocked.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 21, 2012, 01:10:30 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574705
I haven't even read those threads because that's not how I play D&D.  One vs one arena combat or whatever?  Nah, so it's not really relevant to how I judge the game.

That all being said, I already knew 3e is me least favorite edition.  More power to people who like it.


3E and 4E are in the same bucket for me. I will play either of them with a friend excited to run it but I won't run them because they both fixate too much on character fiddly bits and play out slower than I would like.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 01:14:43 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574711
Even over 4e. I'm shocked.


I don't have a lot of desire to play 4e, this is true, because it's more of a tactical boardgame and I like to spend a lot of time role-playing as adverse to moving minis around a map.  But every so often, I like playing tactical boardgames, and 4e would be my fantasy fix in for something like that.

The reason 3e is my least favorite is because more than any other edition, it seems to me that the rules mastery people will walk all over the casual player, and I hate rpg games that do that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 01:26:09 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574720
I don't have a lot of desire to play 4e, this is true, because it's more of a tactical boardgame and I like to spend a lot of time role-playing as adverse to moving minis around a map.  But every so often, I like playing tactical boardgames, and 4e would be my fantasy fix in for something like that.

The reason 3e is my least favorite is because more than any other edition, it seems to me that the rules mastery people will walk all over the casual player, and I hate rpg games that do that.


That's why I left for Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder. Honestly Fantasy Craft is just as crunchy as 3x but there are no "trap" choices. I hated that about 3x, that and the virtual requirement of building a character 1-20 before you even play the game.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 21, 2012, 01:34:47 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574720
The reason 3e is my least favorite is because more than any other edition, it seems to me that the rules mastery people will walk all over the casual player, and I hate rpg games that do that.


This I can understand. However, I've found that the rules mastery people usually do not have an understanding of tactics and get their asses handed to them more often than not. Plus, if you do not game with assholes, than the problem solves itself a lot of the time.

I'm with the casual player attitude because I play for fun.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 01:42:22 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;574724
That's why I left for Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder. Honestly Fantasy Craft is just as crunchy as 3x but there are no "trap" choices. I hated that about 3x, that and the virtual requirement of building a character 1-20 before you even play the game.


Ok, sell me on Fantasy Craft. If you made an argument to play Fantasy Craft over Pathfinder, what would it be?

I read a short review of fanatasy craft but I am totally unfamiliar with it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 01:49:57 PM
Quote from: Bill;574731
Ok, sell me on Fantasy Craft. If you made an argument to play Fantasy Craft over Pathfinder, what would it be?

I read a short review of fanatasy craft but I am totally unfamiliar with it.


Fantasy Craft because it solved the LF/QW issue in spades (in fact many think the magic users get the short end of the stick and that may be true until Spellbound comes out and fleshes out magic). Also it is highly modular, the campaign traits L & L mentioned for 5e are a straight port from Fantasy Craft.

Arcane magic users are more akin to 3x Sorcerers with far less spells and the system being spell points. But they have tricks like at-will cantrips and 1-2nd level spells in certain conditions. The spells are stronger than 3x overall. All the feats are bundled in 3 level feat trees, overall everyone has more feats than even Pathfinder and the Fighter class has features that make the feats they get operate better. Magic items are tied into reputation which is an "in" game thing so no faking. They have a fun downtime mechanic. The list goes on.....

Clerics are nothing like 3x they get paths with maybe 5 spells total but have all sorts of class features. Monks/Paladins are prestige classes. Divine magic cannot be saved against or interupted like arcane magic. Also being modular means you don't have to buy anything but the corebook and you would be fine. It follows Marley's Rule of 5. If you can't run a complete game within 5 books get the fuck out.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 01:55:13 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;574738
Fantasy Craft because it solved the LF/QW issue in spades (in fact many think the magic users get the short end of the stick and that may be true until Spellbound comes out and fleshes out magic). Also it is highly modular, the campaign traits L & L mentioned for 5e are a straight port from Fantasy Craft.

Arcane magic users are more akin to 3x Sorcerers with far less spells and the system being spell points. But they have tricks like at-will cantrips and 1-2nd level spells in certain conditions. The spells are stronger than 3x overall. All the feats are bundled in 3 level feat trees, overall everyone has more feats than even Pathfinder and the Fighter class has features that make the feats they get operate better. Magic items are tied into reputation which is an "in" game thing so no faking. They have a fun downtime mechanic. The list goes on.....


Hmmm...
Fighters and Wizards having a semblence of balance.
I prefer 'Sorcerors' to 'Wizards'
Feats and Fighter Feats handled better.

I'll have to check it out.

That actually sounds like a game I would like.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 21, 2012, 02:00:22 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;574728
This I can understand. However, I've found that the rules mastery people usually do not have an understanding of tactics and get their asses handed to them more often than not. Plus, if you do not game with assholes, than the problem solves itself a lot of the time.

I'm with the casual player attitude because I play for fun.

It is interesting that Sacro's reasoning for not likin 3rd is that rules mastery people can beat casual players. I thought he was one of those people who believe it to be a cooperative game where everyone is on the same team. I too agree that a number of people who show up to games with the intent on making the best character ever are easily killed in situations that actually involve critical thinking. However sometimes you get people who know the rules and are tactically minded enough to use the best of both and they do tend to dominate games.

However, when I play 3rd (rare is it that I actually "play" instead of GM) I always try to help the people I'm playing with. If I notice someone's character can't do what they want it to do by the rules I ask the player then the GM if I can help them out. If I notice someone isn't good at communicating their ideas I offer help. Somehow there's this idea on this board where learning the rules and being able to read them turns you into this sub human creature incapable of socializing with people. The only person that's ever made me get up and leave a table of DnD DIDN'T know the rules well (though he insisted he did) and continuously metagamed despite the GM's and my own complaints. Every asshole GM I've ever played under (such as the story I posted in the favorite system thread) has valued what makes sense to them over fairness and rules. Every asshole player I would ever actually complain about either didn't know the rules or just straight up acted a fool at the table (bein on their phone, laptop, not paying attention to what was going on, the list goes on) So yes, I am understandably shy of Rules-Lite systems because as far as I've experienced, the less the rules actually protect my actions the more likely the GM is to heavy handedly railroad me into his/her story.

Does that mean every rules lite system "creates" these kinds of railroady (my story comes first fuck the rules) GMs? Not necessarily. What it does mean is that every time I've had a major gamin problem it is because the GM took liberty with (without warning) disregarding the rules or their own position that specifically pissed me off in some way. So that makes me more trusting of rules heavy systems and has made player empowerment very important to me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 21, 2012, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: Bill;574743
Hmmm...
Fighters and Wizards having a semblence of balance.
I prefer 'Sorcerors' to 'Wizards'
Feats and Fighter Feats handled better.

I'll have to check it out.

That actually sounds like a game I would like.
Fantasycraft is very tool kit oriented. You can basically mix and match certain rules (and there're whole sections on doing so) to create the game, monsters, items, settings,etc that you want. It's a lot like any other d20 toolkit you might have but a lot of the effects are more well rounded and some of the suggestions are truly interesting. Most of the abilities I've seen in the game don't allow you to get to the same powerlevel as Pathfinder/DnD's endgame. It's more dificult to do "a lot" with the spells and powers in fantasy craft so on the whole casters get a substancial powering down in it.

There are stillc racks and chinks in the game as a whole like there was no attempt at making a decent CR system so you have to use a fine hand and have a good head on your shoulders to balance encounters. There are a lot of little bits you can stack together to be more effective than other characters as a whole (in short there's minmaxxing that can be done) but to the casual gamer (much like most levels of core 3rd) the problems aren't really really huge unless you look hard enough.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 02:07:09 PM
Quote from: MGuy;574749
It is interesting that Sacro's reasoning for not likin 3rd is that rules mastery people can beat casual players..


I know this is probably a worthless response, but anyway....


That's not what I said.  I said the rules mastery people will walk all over the casual player, not that they beat them.  What that means is that someone who knows all the rules will end up having a character made in such a way that the other casual players will feel like they made inferior characters, and thus feel like they are being overshadowed.  There is no way a DM could balance encounters for both casual players and munchkins who belong to the same party.  It would be the equivalent of trying to balance encounters for a party that had a level 5 and level 10 character in AD&D.  One of the two is not going to enjoy it.

Add to that the fact that 3e seems like the purpose is less "play the adventure" and more "build the best character build".  Not only that, but it seems like it's built for the end game and you should just skip the first 20 levels, because that's all 3e players ever talk about.

None of that appeals to me at all.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 02:10:07 PM
Quote from: MGuy;574749
It is interesting that Sacro's reasoning for not likin 3rd is that rules mastery people can beat casual players. I thought he was one of those people who believe it to be a cooperative game where everyone is on the same team. I too agree that a number of people who show up to games with the intent on making the best character ever are easily killed in situations that actually involve critical thinking. However sometimes you get people who know the rules and are tactically minded enough to use the best of both and they do tend to dominate games.

However, when I play 3rd (rare is it that I actually "play" instead of GM) I always try to help the people I'm playing with. If I notice someone's character can't do what they want it to do by the rules I ask the player then the GM if I can help them out. If I notice someone isn't good at communicating their ideas I offer help. Somehow there's this idea on this board where learning the rules and being able to read them turns you into this sub human creature incapable of socializing with people. The only person that's ever made me get up and leave a table of DnD DIDN'T know the rules well (though he insisted he did) and continuously metagamed despite the GM's and my own complaints. Every asshole GM I've ever played under (such as the story I posted in the favorite system thread) has valued what makes sense to them over fairness and rules. Every asshole player I would ever actually complain about either didn't know the rules or just straight up acted a fool at the table (bein on their phone, laptop, not paying attention to what was going on, the list goes on) So yes, I am understandably shy of Rules-Lite systems because as far as I've experienced, the less the rules actually protect my actions the more likely the GM is to heavy handedly railroad me into his/her story.

Does that mean every rules lite system "creates" these kinds of railroady (my story comes first fuck the rules) GMs? Not necessarily. What it does mean is that every time I've had a major gamin problem it is because the GM took liberty with (without warning) disregarding the rules or their own position that specifically pissed me off in some way. So that makes me more trusting of rules heavy systems and has made player empowerment very important to me.


Don't play with heavy handed railrody gms. Game systems don't make a gm good or bad.

But seriously, here is an example of how I personally 'bend the rules'
Normally I follow the rules when I gm.

But, if a Cleric of the Sun God wants to attempt to violate RAW and use Turn Undead to dispel a Darkness Spell....I will let him try.

Not game breaking, fits the flavor of the character and setting, makes sense.

I don't think bending the rules is in itself a bad thing. It's how you bend them, and why that matters.



One thing I hate is gm's that roll behind a screen and enjoy declaring 'Hit!! or 'Critical Hit!' as they ignore a pc's AC because they feel 'he has not been hit enough lately'


I do believe that if you are not going to use the stats in the game, play a diceless rpg like Nobilis.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 21, 2012, 02:11:38 PM
Quote from: MGuy;574749
It is interesting that Sacro's reasoning for not likin 3rd is that rules mastery people can beat casual players. I thought he was one of those people who believe it to be a cooperative game where everyone is on the same team. I too agree that a number of people who show up to games with the intent on making the best character ever are easily killed in situations that actually involve critical thinking. However sometimes you get people who know the rules and are tactically minded enough to use the best of both and they do tend to dominate games.

However, when I play 3rd (rare is it that I actually "play" instead of GM) I always try to help the people I'm playing with. If I notice someone's character can't do what they want it to do by the rules I ask the player then the GM if I can help them out. If I notice someone isn't good at communicating their ideas I offer help. Somehow there's this idea on this board where learning the rules and being able to read them turns you into this sub human creature incapable of socializing with people. The only person that's ever made me get up and leave a table of DnD DIDN'T know the rules well (though he insisted he did) and continuously metagamed despite the GM's and my own complaints. Every asshole GM I've ever played under (such as the story I posted in the favorite system thread) has valued what makes sense to them over fairness and rules. Every asshole player I would ever actually complain about either didn't know the rules or just straight up acted a fool at the table (bein on their phone, laptop, not paying attention to what was going on, the list goes on) So yes, I am understandably shy of Rules-Lite systems because as far as I've experienced, the less the rules actually protect my actions the more likely the GM is to heavy handedly railroad me into his/her story.

Does that mean every rules lite system "creates" these kinds of railroady (my story comes first fuck the rules) GMs? Not necessarily. What it does mean is that every time I've had a major gamin problem it is because the GM took liberty with (without warning) disregarding the rules or their own position that specifically pissed me off in some way. So that makes me more trusting of rules heavy systems and has made player empowerment very important to me.


A DM turning a game into a wannabe novel is independent of system. Carefully arranged CRs and adventure paths are features of 3E/PF.

So having the ability to make any mechanical monstosity desired is no protection from a DM determined to have a party go hoop jumping. It just means that you get to make the jumps with bigger numbers in the places you want them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 02:12:13 PM
Quote from: MGuy;574755
Fantasycraft is very tool kit oriented. You can basically mix and match certain rules (and there're whole sections on doing so) to create the game, monsters, items, settings,etc that you want. It's a lot like any other d20 toolkit you might have but a lot of the effects are more well rounded and some of the suggestions are truly interesting. Most of the abilities I've seen in the game don't allow you to get to the same powerlevel as Pathfinder/DnD's endgame. It's more dificult to do "a lot" with the spells and powers in fantasy craft so on the whole casters get a substancial powering down in it.

There are stillc racks and chinks in the game as a whole like there was no attempt at making a decent CR system so you have to use a fine hand and have a good head on your shoulders to balance encounters. There are a lot of little bits you can stack together to be more effective than other characters as a whole (in short there's minmaxxing that can be done) but to the casual gamer (much like most levels of core 3rd) the problems aren't really really huge unless you look hard enough.


I have not used Challenge ratings in over 20 years, so that's not a problem.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 21, 2012, 02:13:45 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574758
Add to that the fact that 3e seems like the purpose is less "play the adventure" and more "build the best character build".  Not only that, but it seems like it's built for the end game and you should just skip the first 20 levels, because that's all 3e players ever talk about.

None of that appeals to me at all.


Nor should it.

The big exception is that what you point out above is an aspect of a gamer subculture that has evolved for 3.x/Pathfinder and not the entirety of the playerbase. Just like all 4E fans are not 4vengers. Do not take the vocal minority to be the majority because the majority is off playing games and not posting on forums.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 02:26:35 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574720
I don't have a lot of desire to play 4e, this is true, because it's more of a tactical boardgame and I like to spend a lot of time role-playing as adverse to moving minis around a map.  But every so often, I like playing tactical boardgames, and 4e would be my fantasy fix in for something like that.


The thing is that 4e combat is boring.

It goes something like this. MOB's appear from the aether and initative is rolled. It dosen't matter who wins initative. Everyone uses their encounter powers because their is no reason not to.
 
After the encounter powers are all depleted everyone stats spamming their at-will. If you are lucky the group is smart enough to focus fire on one MOB at a time, if this is so congratulate them as they have learned the only tactic needed in 4e.

After using the same at-will the 100th time you will have lost your mind, don't worry about it brains are not needed to play 4e due to healing effects making PCs invulnerable.

After 8-10 rounds of pure at-will spamming bliss a the MOBs will all be dead and you will revive phat loot, unless you are fighting a solo monster. If such misfortune befalls you tell the other players to roll for your at-will every round and find a long book. It's gonna take be a while.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 21, 2012, 02:32:34 PM
Quote from: Bill;574743
Hmmm...
Fighters and Wizards having a semblence of balance.
I prefer 'Sorcerors' to 'Wizards'
Feats and Fighter Feats handled better.

I'll have to check it out.

That actually sounds like a game I would like.


Before you get it, check out this thread. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21828)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 21, 2012, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574758
I know this is probably a worthless response, but anyway....
so you say but:


Quote
That's not what I said.  I said the rules mastery people will walk all over the casual player, not that they beat them.  What that means is that someone who knows all the rules will end up having a character made in such a way that the other casual players will feel like they made inferior characters, and thus feel like they are being overshadowed.  There is no way a DM could balance encounters for both casual players and munchkins who belong to the same party.  It would be the equivalent of trying to balance encounters for a party that had a level 5 and level 10 character in AD&D.  One of the two is not going to enjoy it.

Add to that the fact that 3e seems like the purpose is less "play the adventure" and more "build the best character build".  Not only that, but it seems like it's built for the end game and you should just skip the first 20 levels, because that's all 3e players ever talk about.

None of that appeals to me at all.


This is worth talking about. 3rd has a number of issues, such as balance, and what you pointed out is an issue. Poor choices in abilites and class (like being a fighter) can put you behind the curve and that's not good. It is mostly an issue though at higher levels where the bonuses and differences in power do show up a lot. The biggest problem with 3rd is that in it's conception balance was only the focus for lower levels. With all the evidence I've read, heard about, and can see the game only holds together well at lower levels. At levels 10 (9) and up things become really unhinged. I can attest that I know of few people who actually play higher levels with any regularity.

As for it being about "builds" I don't know what you're talking about. Builds are usually secondary in any story of playing a ood game of D&D. You talk to any player I had at my table you won't be hearin about how they built their character you'll be hearing about what they did not how they built their character to do it. When a friend of mine buried his character sheet in his backyard in mourning for his retired fighter/rogue turned god it wasn't because he was a well built character and if you were to ask him how he was built he'd tell you two things: All of his choices were made because of what was happening in the campaign and that he'd need to crack open a few books to remember.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 21, 2012, 02:37:18 PM
Quote from: Bill;574760
Don't play with heavy handed railrody gms. Game systems don't make a gm good or bad.

But seriously, here is an example of how I personally 'bend the rules'
Normally I follow the rules when I gm.

But, if a Cleric of the Sun God wants to attempt to violate RAW and use Turn Undead to dispel a Darkness Spell....I will let him try.

Not game breaking, fits the flavor of the character and setting, makes sense.

I don't think bending the rules is in itself a bad thing. It's how you bend them, and why that matters.



One thing I hate is gm's that roll behind a screen and enjoy declaring 'Hit!! or 'Critical Hit!' as they ignore a pc's AC because they feel 'he has not been hit enough lately'


I do believe that if you are not going to use the stats in the game, play a diceless rpg like Nobilis.


I've had my share of bad d20 experiences as well (really bad SAGA edition game) but I'm more familiar with and actively run 3rd/pathfinder games. I also am open to playing 7th Sea despite a truly bad experience under a GM. I don't necessarily blame a system for the failures of a GM. What's more is I don't believe a system makes or prevents a good GM from being a GM. I separate the flaws in a system from the people running it. That's why I am able to spend all day talking about what I don't like about 3rd ed and still claim it as my favorite editionttrpg.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 02:39:09 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;574774
Before you get it, check out this thread. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21828)


It's definitely not for everybody but the good news is that the investment into the game is minimal.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 02:56:03 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574772
The thing is that 4e combat is boring.

It goes something like this. MOB's appear from the aether and initative is rolled. It dosen't matter who wins initative. Everyone uses their encounter powers because their is no reason not to.
 
After the encounter powers are all depleted everyone stats spamming their at-will. If you are lucky the group is smart enough to focus fire on one MOB at a time, if this is so congratulate them as they have learned the only tactic needed in 4e.

After using the same at-will the 100th time you will have lost your mind, don't worry about it brains are not needed to play 4e due to healing effects making PCs invulnerable.

After 8-10 rounds of pure at-will spamming bliss a the MOBs will all be dead and you will revive phat loot, unless you are fighting a solo monster. If such misfortune befalls you tell the other players to roll for your at-will every round and find a long book. It's gonna take be a while.



That's not how 4E goes in combat.

Mobs appearing from thin air? Any bad gm can do that in any rpg. There is nothing in 4E that says 'mobs appear'

Initiative is the same as in 3X. It matters the same as it does in most rpg's.

People do not always use encounter powers at the start of a battle. Many players use daily powers right away, some do use encounters first, or a mix.
Sometimes an at will with a special effect.

4E characters at level 1, typically have 2 encounter powers. But at any level of substance, such as 7+characters may have many encounter powers. I have gone through complete battles in 4E with only encounter powers at level 15+  (4e goes to level 30, with a level 30 being comparable to a 3X level 20)

Spaming at wills? Hardly. Daily powers are an option, and how is having 2 or 3 at wills that do something, worse than having no at wills (3xFtr) or gimp at wills (3X cantrips)?  3X and 4E fighters can both spam power attack, but the 4E ftr also has actual atwills that have effects in addition to applying power attack if he likes. More options, not less. (4E casters do have less spells than 3X, but still plenty to work with)

Focus fire is not useful in 3X? Its almost always a good battle tactic in any rpg. 4E has no special affinity for focus fire.

Pc's are not invulnerable. Its the same as in 3X. If you are allowed to rest anytime you like, the party is always at full strength and will kisk ass. 4E characters do have excessive 'in between battles' healing.

Long battles? depends. I have been in mind numbingly long battles in 4E and 3X. Its more about player preparedness than anything else.


I realize you were not being literal, but I have played and dm'd a lot of 4E, and I don't play or dm any differently than when I do Pathfinder.

If it was up to me I would just play 1E/2E.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 03:12:06 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;574779
It's definitely not for everybody but the good news is that the investment into the game is minimal.


The game is cheap?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 03:16:10 PM
Quote from: CRKrueger;574774
Before you get it, check out this thread. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21828)



Nice thread!
Looks like the game has detailed character creation, and better class balance.
Sounds good.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 03:16:32 PM
Quote from: Bill;574803
The game is cheap?


Not cheap (30-35 dollars) you just don't need anything but the corebook. They do have a companion out (20 dollars) that gives more options and 3 minisettings. And Spellbound (the arcane magic book) is coming sometime. They do plan in the future to have a equipment book, divine magic, and a psiconic book. But absolutely none of that is required in the least.

Now you do have to remember the company is just 2 guys with day jobs so if you like suppliments it isn't the game for you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 03:29:31 PM
Quote from: Bill;574786
Long battles? depends. I have been in mind numbingly long battles in 4E and 3X. Its more about player preparedness than anything else.


3e battles tend to be over in 3-4 rounds due to how brutal 3e combat is. In 3e it's rare for PC not to die from 2 full attacks.
4e monsters have more hp than their 3e counterparts even though eveyone does less damage in 4e a level 3 solo monster can have 200 hp.
Players need to grind through all of those huge pools of hp with their 1dX+stat mod, and it's not like 3e where players take a flying leap off the RNG. In 4e you miss 40% of the time at level 1 and at level 30 so combat takes even longer.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 03:30:05 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;574812
Not cheap (30-35 dollars) you just don't need anything but the corebook. They do have a companion out (20 dollars) that gives more options and 3 minisettings. And Spellbound (the arcane magic book) is coming sometime. They do plan in the future to have a equipment book, divine magic, and a psiconic book. But absolutely none of that is required in the least.

Now you do have to remember the company is just 2 guys with day jobs so if you like suppliments it isn't the game for you.


I can relate very well to the 'two guys company with day jobs and slow to release new game books'
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 03:32:56 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574820
3e battles tend to be over in 3-4 rounds due to how brutal 3e combat is. In 3e it's rare for PC not to die from 2 full attacks.
4e monsters have more hp than their 3e counterparts even though eveyone does less damage in 4e a level 3 solo monster can have 200 hp.
Players need to grind through all of those huge pools of hp with their 1dX+stat mod, and it's not like 3e where players take a flying leap off the RNG. In 4e you miss 40% of the time at level 1 and at level 30 so combat takes even longer.


Less damage? not so sure. I am playing in a 4e game at the moment where a level 14 optimized rogue is putting out over 100 points of damage with an alpha strike by himself. But I agree in principle, and when I dm 4E I double monster damage output and halve monster hp.


3-4 rounds? Not when I play 3X. But you are most likely more of an expert on 3X than I am.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 03:42:34 PM
Hearing people argue between 3e and 4e about damage output and hit points has convinced me that in 2000, D&D turned into a JRPG.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 21, 2012, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574830
Hearing people argue between 3e and 4e about damage output and hit points has convinced me that in 2000, D&D turned into a JRPG.


JRPG? Japanese RPG?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 03:47:54 PM
Quote from: Bill;574823
Less damage? not so sure. I am playing in a 4e game at the moment where a level 14 optimized rogue is putting out over 100 points of damage with an alpha strike by himself. But I agree in principle, and when I dm 4E I double monster damage output and halve monster hp.


I only played 4e when the first books came out and not even that much so my experience may be a bit skewed.

Quote from: Bill;574823
3-4 rounds? Not when I play 3X. But you are most likely more of an expert on 3X than I am.


How do you not die to closet trolls and stuff?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 03:51:32 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574833
I only played 4e when the first books came out and not even that much so my experience may be a bit skewed.



How do you not die to closet trolls and stuff?


What is a closet Troll?



fyi, 4E is better than it was when released. More fleshed out now.

Not saying it's the game for everyone, but its initial release was enemic.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 03:52:19 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574594
Seeing as how the tarrasque is a unique creature, right?  I guess it's just one more point to chaulk up under the "Munchkins don't care about actual campaign worlds or characters, it's all about maximizing the numbers even if it makes no sense at all from a continuity standpoint."


I did pretty blank out and dismiss the whole thing after the mention of the number "4" and the word "daily".
Quote
What is a closet Troll?
A troll that's gay?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574830
Hearing people argue between 3e and 4e about damage output and hit points has convinced me that in 2000, D&D turned into a JRPG.


In my defense, when I play I don't really pay much attention to numbers.

But when someone is WRONG on the INTERNET!!!! I will vomit forth numbers for purpose of debate.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 03:56:21 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;574838
I did pretty blank out and dismiss the whole thing after the mention of the number "4" and the word "daily".A troll that's gay?


Hmmm...I guess some Trolls would be. Just keep an eye out for the trolls that wear stylish clothing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 03:57:55 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574831
JRPG? Japanese RPG?


Yep.  Like Final Fantasy where characters have 4852 hit points and do 1923 damage per round.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 03:58:23 PM
Quote from: Bill;574837
What is a closet Troll?

It's a Dennism about how a Troll on a flat featurless plain is a much easier encounter than if you're locked in a closet with one.

It's also their term for the fact that monsters with full attacks do not fuck around and will kill you in 2-3 rounds.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 04:00:27 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574845
It's a Dennism about how a Troll on a flat featurless plain is a much easier encounter than if you're locked in a closet with one.

It's also their term for the fact that monsters with full attacks do not fuck around and will kill you in 2-3 rounds.


I see.  Well, I would suggest not getting in the closet with a Troll, and move away from the troll at every chance, while using bows and spells to.....

naaa...just Get in the Closet!!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 04:02:47 PM
Quote
naaa...just Get in the Closet!!
Only if you have fire handy...fire, fire, fire!!!! (Sorry a little Beavis moment).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 04:02:55 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574833
I only played 4e when the first books came out and not even that much so my experience may be a bit skewed.



How do you not die to closet trolls and stuff?


Ok, so I guess as a dm I don't do a lot of 'Your in a closet, you die' scenarios, and as a player I try not to stand next to the deadly meleers without an ace, like mirror image, hold monster, etc...

But sure, if you get pinned down, you might bet taken down fast.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: Bill;574847
I see.  Well, I would suggest not getting in the closet with a Troll, and move away from the troll at every chance, while using bows and spells to.....

naaa...just Get in the Closet!!


That works for some monsters, but then you still get eaten by lions.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 04:04:05 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;574851
Only if you have fire handy...fire, fire, fire!!!! (Sorry a little Beavis moment).


Now why am I thinking of 'Beavis and Butthead go to DND land'

Would be funny
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 21, 2012, 04:11:46 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574845
It's a Dennism about how a Troll on a flat featurless plain is a much easier encounter than if you're locked in a closet with one.

It's also their term for the fact that monsters with full attacks do not fuck around and will kill you in 2-3 rounds.


A troll.  Hmmph. How a cave with 21 trolls and a jug of alchemy!  :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 21, 2012, 04:17:18 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574853
That works for some monsters, but then you still get eaten by lions.


Pounce breaks their own core concept of one attack if you move more than 5'

I hate pounce.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 04:29:53 PM
Quote from: Bill;574859
Pounce breaks their own core concept of one attack if you move more than 5'

I hate pounce.


The worst part of pounce is it's hard as fuck to get as a PC, as far as I know their are only 5 ways.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 04:36:48 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;574645
Why would anyone care to prove you wrong?  You haven't said anything to prove you're right, either.  You've made apparently unfounded accusations and expect the rest of the world to explain why you're an idiot and/or an asshole?  

I'm sorry, but I just don't have enough time to give you the thorough explanation you so clearly deserve.  

But that's okay.  You're entitled to your stupid opinion and your offensive behavior.  I've seen worse on the web.


So you've got nothing, then.

Then why are you still posting in this thread? Go fuck off to Jeff1138's abomination of a game in the Thunderdome.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 04:45:55 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574650
Because I'm feeling generous:

Affirming the consequent/Denying the antecedent

    Affirming the consequent and Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
        Affirming the consequent Example:

            Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.
            Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough. The argument treats having the flu as a necessary condition of coughing; in fact, having the flu is a sufficient condition of coughing, but it is not necessary to have the flu for one to cough.
            Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
            Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).

    Denying the antecedent Example

            Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
            Problem: Rain is a sufficient condition of cloudiness, but cloudy conditions do not necessarily imply rain.



That assumes that my conclusions are baseless. They are not.

3rd edition D&D specifically caters to munchkins, powergamers and rules lawyers more so than any other edition, this has been established.

These qualities are considered to be abhorrent and wholly undesirable traits in prospective players. This has also been established.

If 3rd edition rewards this sort of behavior over any others, then this is the sort of player that the game is written for.

If a player is drawn to 3rd edition over all other games, then it must be for the virtues of that game, which are that it rewards munchkins, powergamers, rules lawyers, and other reprehensible scum.

Therefore, 3rd edition appeals to certain people because they are assholes.

I honestly don't understand what you find so difficult to understand about this.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
Quote from: Imperator;574660

You are a fucking idiot. I have found munchkins playing all kinds of games, from AD&D to RQ to Prince Valiant, even. One thing is to say that muchkins may prefer a more complex ruleset (which matches my experience) and another thing is to say that a game WILL CHANGE YOUR BRAIN.


Sigh.

Okay...I'll go over this again for your benefit.

I am NOT saying that playing 3rd edition magically transforms someone into an asshole.

I'm saying that 3rd edition rewards asshole-ish behavior, and therefore it appeals to certain people precisely BECAUSE they were assholes in the first place.

Assholes existed in gaming long before 3rd edition ever came out, but that's where they found their home.

Quote from: Imperator;574660

That is bad IF IMMERSION IS YOUR GOAL. It happens to be mine, but I understand that other people may prefer other things without being assholes for that.


What other goal can there be, honestly?

I mean, if the goal is competitive deck building, like in 3rd edition, then you are no longer playing D&D....you're playing Magic: The Gathering.

Quote from: Imperator;574660

I think that the exclusionary culture has more to do with the fundamentalism of places like this than the complexity of the rules. Morons like you do little to get new blood to the hobby.


Actually I pretty much exclusively recruit new players among my pool of non-gamer friends. You might be surprised to find out that I don't like gamers all that much...particularly since most of them are 3ggers.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 21, 2012, 04:53:35 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574869


If a player is drawn to 3rd edition over all other games, then it must be for the virtues of that game, which are that it rewards munchkins, powergamers, rules lawyers, and other reprehensible scum.

Therefore, 3rd edition appeals to certain people because they are assholes..



This is the fallacy I'm talking about.  You're assuming that 3e has no other features other than to cater towards munchkins and powergamers.

And that's not the case, as has been pointed out to you more than once already.  Therefore, your logic if flawed and false.

Like you said, I don't understand why that's so hard for you to understand.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574672
Of cours I know that. Most people are naive optimizers, not every 3e player plans every feat spell and level out in advanced, most just work through the application of general principals that's what I do. Splatbooks are not the huge problem in 3e. I think most people who buy them are more interested in having some new options to keep thing fun and fresh than to digging through the thing to find something broken.

The Druid is kinda too good from most games due to automatically getting a polymorph effect that lasts all day. The Cleric on the other hand isn't out-fighting fighters in my tables or most tables really, CharOpers tend to preach the class so hard because in addition to fighting almost as well a Fighters they can do other things due to spells.

Their are definitely "wrong" choices in 3e and this is a problem with the game but a Str 6 fighter in other editions could be a "wrong" choice in the same way, however "right" choices in 3e are harder to define. Unless you game with really hardcore minmaxers than you can just take feats that enable what ever you want to do.


Okay...I sling this around as an insult all the time, I know...but seriously...

DO you have asperger's?

Because you keep trying to turn this into a discussion about the vagaries of 3E charop. The proper way to build a fighter isn't the topic of discussion, nor is class balance.

The topic is the 3E player base, and how the game rewards this kind of OCD number-fellating, which in turn has created a culture of rotcunt.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574672

This is wrong.

Stormwind Fallacy, learn it.


Bullshit.

This has nothing to do with the Stormwind Fallacy.

This has to do with how 3rd edition is played, which is primarily during chargen, or leveling up, or spell/feat selection and not at the table.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574672

Also how is it exclusionary if a new player can look up a build online and come to a table and do just as well as the player who spent 3 hours making his character.


Why should a new player feel compelled to do this just to play a silly elfgame with friends? Why shouldn't the new player simply be able to pick something out of a book and have it work as intended?

THIS is precisely why I keep calling you a cunt.


Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574672

One more thing how is it worse for someone to roll bad on his random stats and be locked out of the game than a person who made a bad character accidentally to be just as locked out of the game.


It ISN'T bad to roll poorly on your stats. That's what I'm saying.

In AD&D/Basic higher stats gives the character an advantage, but ultimately it's the decisions the character makes in play and the luck of the dice that determines whether the character succeeds or not.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 05:09:18 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;574873
This is the fallacy I'm talking about.  You're assuming that 3e has no other features other than to cater towards munchkins and powergamers.

And that's not the case, as has been pointed out to you more than once already.  Therefore, your logic if flawed and false.

Like you said, I don't understand why that's so hard for you to understand.


3E doesn't have any other features besides it's competitive deck building aspect. None.

It has not been proven. In fact, no one has been able to name a single other virtue that can't be found in AD&D or Basic.

Therefore, people who actively choose to play 3E, do so because solely because of the competitive deck building.

These people are assholes for the reasons mentioned previously.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 21, 2012, 05:14:50 PM
Note: the subject says "game of choice".
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 21, 2012, 05:17:19 PM
Just to drill in on these with some clarity...

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574869

3rd edition D&D specifically caters to munchkins, powergamers and rules lawyers more so than any other edition, this has been established.


This is true, in my book.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574869

These qualities are considered to be abhorrent and wholly undesirable traits in prospective players. This has also been established.


This is only true within certain circles, unfortunately.  There are many who like these traits and would encourage them in others.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574869

If 3rd edition rewards this sort of behavior over any others, then this is the sort of player that the game is written for.


I don't find this to be true because I believe that this reward is a byproduct of certain choices, rather than a goal.  You are assuming that WotC intended the result, and without any facts to back that up, you simply can't rule out it happening by accident.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574869

If a player is drawn to 3rd edition over all other games, then it must be for the virtues of that game, which are that it rewards munchkins, powergamers, rules lawyers, and other reprehensible scum.


This gets increasingly true as new alternatives present themselves, so that's pretty solid.  It seems that if you wouldn't be comfortable as a 'Denner' then you're probably in the wrong place playing 3e, assuming there are viable alternatives.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574869

Therefore, 3rd edition appeals to certain people because they are assholes.


This again is true, certain people prefer the system for the specific reasons you outlined.

But then, what isn't quoted here, is you taking the leap from 'certain people' to 'everyone'...  I can't find it, but you did at some point make the claim that all 3e players are cunts and/or autistic, or something to that effect.  To be completely fair, you've backed off that position a fair bit, and perhaps Sacrosanct simply didn't notice.  However, I think the strongest position you can logically claim is that the chances of running into someone you'd call a cunt are higher in 3e than in other games.  But I don't see how you can claim that you have identified a majority as such.

Not sure if that helps or hurts, but I thought I'd try.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 21, 2012, 05:21:07 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574880
3E doesn't have any other features besides it's competitive deck building aspect. None.
Well, it has aspects of customization, that is, the rules system itself supports choices in the game world and potentially helps increase a synergy between the rules you play, and the world they depict. Because you have a prestige class that emulates that particular faction of the game world, you have that feat that simulates your infection from Chaos giving you a third arm, and so on, so forth.

Now the question becomes *why* particular players would feel compelled to have mechanical representations of these aspects of their characters and ties to the world to the point of making 3rd ed their game of choice, and there you have IMO several possibilities, three of the obvious ones being (1) guaranteeing "fairness" and in other words, seeking a solution from bad experiences lived with previous iterations of the game, i.e. "show us where the bad GM touched you," (2) the CharOp, über-build of doom approach, which is basically a way for players to compare sizes, the "my character is more awesomer than thou" shit, and (3) OCD, i.e. you NEED to have these aspects covered by rules and numbers otherwise you just CAN'T play the game and it bothers you to such an extent that it's just a requirement in your RPGs.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574884

I don't find this to be true because I believe that this reward is a byproduct of certain choices, rather than a goal.  You are assuming that WotC intended the result, and without any facts to back that up, you simply can't rule out it happening by accident.


Monte Cook (http://montecook.mulehill.com/line-of-sight/ivory-tower-game-design) disagrees with you.

Quote from: mcbobbo;574884

But then, what isn't quoted here, is you taking the leap from 'certain people' to 'everyone'...  I can't find it, but you did at some point make the claim that all 3e players are cunts and/or autistic, or something to that effect.  To be completely fair, you've backed off that position a fair bit, and perhaps Sacrosanct simply didn't notice.  However, I think the strongest position you can logically claim is that the chances of running into someone you'd call a cunt are higher in 3e than in other games.  But I don't see how you can claim that you have identified a majority as such.


No...when I say "certain people" I mean that 3e appeals to a specific type of person, all of whom are basement dwelling, OCD fuck muppets, and THOSE form the player base for the game.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 21, 2012, 05:32:22 PM
Quote from: Benoist;574888
Well, it has aspects of customization, that is, the rules system itself supports choices in the game world and potentially helps increase a synergy between the rules you play, and the world they depict. Because you have a prestige class that emulates that particular faction of the game world, you have that feat that simulates your infection from Chaos giving you a third arm, and so on, so forth.


Meh.

Prestige classes are just more wank fodder for munchkins.

AD&D and Basic have all the customization that a player could want. Notice how the "Character Name" field on the sheets are blank.

Quote from: Benoist;574888

Now the question becomes *why* particular players would feel compelled to have mechanical representations of these aspects of their characters and ties to the world to the point of making 3rd ed their game of choice, and there you have IMO several possibilities, three of the obvious ones being (1) guaranteeing "fairness" and in other words, seeking a solution from bad experiences lived with previous iterations of the game, i.e. "show us where the bad GM touched you," (2) the CharOp, über-build of doom approach, which is basically a way for players to compare sizes, the "my character is more awesomer than thou" shit, and (3) OCD, i.e. you NEED to have these aspects covered by rules and numbers otherwise you just CAN'T play the game and it bothers you to such an extent that it's just a requirement in your RPGs.


All of which are utterly reprehensible in my book.

That's the essence of why I hate 3rd edition. It took what used to be a social game, and turned it into an anti-social one.

I hate the 3E player base because they embraced this wholeheartedly.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 06:09:36 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574878

Bullshit.

This has nothing to do with the Stormwind Fallacy.

This has to do with how 3rd edition is played, which is primarily during chargen, or leveling up, or spell/feat selection and not at the table.



It has every thing to with the Storwind Fallacy moron.

You have made several claims

-You claim that 3e encourages minmaxing.
-My counter claim is that an system that allows choices at character generation allows minmaxing, the larger the number of choices the system allows the more potential minmaxing exists.

Further more you have failed to prove any harm caused by optimization.

You claim optimization reduces the potential for roleplaying, this is the Stormwind Fallacy

The only other argument that you have made is that optimization causes divergence in PC ability to contribute to the group. You clearly do not care about that.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;574878

It ISN'T bad to roll poorly on your stats. That's what I'm saying.

In AD&D/Basic higher stats gives the character an advantage, but ultimately it's the decisions the character makes in play and the luck of the dice that determines whether the character succeeds or not.


Wow full retard. So it's fine if random stats give a player an advantage but not if optimization does, let me repackage that.

In 3e higher amounts of optimization give a character an advantage, but ultimately it's the decisions the character makes in play and the luck of the dice that determines whether the character succeeds or not.

You do not have a leg to stand on.

All you have done in this thread is spew bile and whine about people likings things you dislike. This site is a haven for grognards, they do not support you in this.
3e was and remains the most popular edition of D&D so popular that when it was discontinued Pazio was able to repackage it with their own shitty houserules and it still sold like fucking hotcakes.
Many people on this site play 3e without having any minmaxing problems.

The only thing you have acomplish in this thread is show again and again that you are a asshole. Stop being such an asshole.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Machinegun Blue on August 21, 2012, 06:20:36 PM
I was done with 3e after I received D&D for Dummies as a "gift." From the start, 3e was a frustrating game for me. My characters would progress according to what was going on in the campaign and not by some build plan. This would earn me a lot of criticism over ineffective multiclassing. I admit that I made some poor choices when it came to picking feats (who would have expected the game to be set up to screw you?). Not to mention the grief I would get for wanting to play a monk. Anyhow, I get this book because I developed a reputation for building crap characters or something. You'd think a Dummies book for D&D would be interesting but it was simply a list of instructions for optimal builds. What it said to me was, "build a fighter this way or you lose and are an idiot." Never played 3e after that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Fiasco on August 21, 2012, 06:45:36 PM
Criminey, MacAnus and Mistborn are not doing their respective sides any favours, are they. It's like watching two one legged men trying to duel each other to death in an arsekicking contest.

I've played a ot of 3E but it's not my game of choice. To suggest that it's only appeal is competitive deck building is pure bullshit. It has a number of things going for it such as:



To name just a few. Yes it is the game of choice of charoppers and Denners and
the ones on this forum are mostly arseholes but they are a tiny % of the 3E crowd.

Since 1E had the biggest numbers of players in its hey dey I would make the case that on pure numbers alone it had the most arseholes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Planet Algol on August 21, 2012, 07:06:00 PM
I agree with Declan that it is unfortunate that the complexity of 3E serves as an entry barrier for many folks to enjoy D&D.

Assuming that your mother isn't an actuary or rocket scientist ;), compare in your imagination teaching you mom how to play B/X D&D vs. 3E D&D.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 21, 2012, 07:36:50 PM
Quote from: Fiasco;574904

I've played a ot of 3E but it's not my game of choice. To suggest that it's only appeal is competitive deck building is pure bullshit. It has a number of things going for it such as:

  • Incredibly comprehensive rules toolbox for the GM
  • Great customization for players ( this does not automatically mean charop)
  • Very precise grid based combat
  • A metric ton of support material in a myriad of genres
  • A very clean, consistent and precise rules set


To name just a few. Yes it is the game of choice of charoppers and Denners and
the ones on this forum are mostly arseholes but they are a tiny % of the 3E crowd.


I'm still reeling from that Monte Cook thing.  It is a bit like Cthulu for me - it cannot be unknown.  Observe:

Quote

Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)


If this is true, and to be fair it could simply be butthurt from Monte (for example), then 3e really is an abortion of an RPG at its soul.

And for me this really sucks because I really do like it for reasons I've already discussed...

Anyway, again, if the above is true, then the premise that this type of player is the target audience from the very start is sound.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 21, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
Quote from: Fiasco;574904
Criminey, MacAnus and Mistborn are not doing their respective sides any favours, are they. It's like watching two one legged men trying to duel each other to death in an arsekicking contest.

I've played a ot of 3E but it's not my game of choice. To suggest that it's only appeal is competitive deck building is pure bullshit. It has a number of things going for it such as:

  • Incredibly comprehensive rules toolbox for the GM
  • Great customization for players ( this does not automatically mean charop)
  • Very precise grid based combat
  • A metric ton of support material in a myriad of genres
  • A very clean, consistent and precise rules set


To name just a few. Yes it is the game of choice of charoppers and Denners and
the ones on this forum are mostly arseholes but they are a tiny % of the 3E crowd.


Thank you for your entirely reasonable post. I expect it to fall almost entirely on deaf ears, but it's nice that someone with intelligence has a little passion left.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 21, 2012, 07:47:17 PM
Quote
Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)


Monte just doesn't want people to know he wrote the 3e Monk class and then actually thought it was worth taking. If anything it's clear most if not all the people who wrote stuff 3e never understood the game they where writing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: John Morrow on August 21, 2012, 08:48:11 PM
For the most part, I liked D&D 3.5 when I ran it and played a campaign in it and agree with the things Fiasco listed as the good parts of it.  That said, there are certainly valid criticisms of it...

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897
-My counter claim is that an system that allows choices at character generation allows minmaxing, the larger the number of choices the system allows the more potential minmaxing exists.

Not true.  The potential for min-maxing is not created by choices.  The potential for min-maxing is created when choices have different efficacy such that there are objectively good choices and objectively bad choices.  Giving a player the choice between specializing in ranged combat or melee combat only creates a min-maxing problem if one of those forms of combat is significantly more effective than the other in most situations that a character is likely to find themselves in.  

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897
Further more you have failed to prove any harm caused by optimization.

Beyond the fact that it punishes people for not optimizing and may make people feel forced to optimize, deliberately opaquely disparate choices (like some of those found in D&D 3.x) can punish and frustrate beginners and casual players who don't fully understand the value of their choices and thus make bad choices.  And since some choices are objectively better than other choices, it means that the real choices for experienced gamers who understand the value of those choices will actually be narrowed because inefficient and bad choices become non-choices -- "choices" that exist in the rules but would never be used by an experienced and knowledgable player.  A bar that serves six types of poison and one type of beer isn't really presenting patrons with seven choices.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 21, 2012, 09:29:10 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574933
If anything it's clear most if not all the people who wrote stuff 3e never understood the game they where writing.


I wholeheartedly agree. I'm with you 100% on this one. :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Fiasco on August 21, 2012, 09:38:30 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;574930
I'm still reeling from that Monte Cook thing.  It is a bit like Cthulu for me - it cannot be unknown.  Observe:



If this is true, and to be fair it could simply be butthurt from Monte (for example), then 3e really is an abortion of an RPG at its soul.

And for me this really sucks because I really do like it for reasons I've already discussed...

Anyway, again, if the above is true, then the premise that this type of player is the target audience from the very start is sound.


I don't see how authorial intent has much relevance if it's not borne out in actual play. The soul of an RPG is at the game table not in Monte or whoever else's mind.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Fiasco on August 21, 2012, 09:46:04 PM
Another thing missed is the concept of 'game of choice'. How many players actually choose the game? Usually it's the GM who decides what game to run and they are usually the most knowledgeable about gaming in general. There are plenty of gamers who are brought to a game by a GM without any knowledge of other RPGs or editions.

According to MacAngus if your DM does not run 1E/Mentzer or the like but prefers 3E then you are shit out of luck and just another of the legions of arseholes playing the 'wrong' edition for the wrong reasons.

We should ask why does 3E appeal to DMs because clearly deck building or charop bullshit is unlikely to be the reason...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tommy Brownell on August 21, 2012, 09:50:17 PM
Quote from: Fiasco;574979
Another thing missed is the concept of 'game of choice'. How many players actually choose the game? Usually it's the GM who decides what game to run and they are usually the most knowledgeable about gaming in general. There are plenty of gamers who are brought to a game by a GM without any knowledge of other RPGs or editions.

We should ask why does 3E appeal to DMs because clearly deck building or charop bullshit is unlikely to be the reason...


I game with my friends almost exclusively, and I'm rarely able to drag them kicking and screaming into a game.

That said, I would sure be curious as to just what the appeal of 3E is to GMs, other than "easy to find players", because I found it a nightmare to work with.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 21, 2012, 09:56:28 PM
Quote from: Fiasco;574979
Another thing missed is the concept of 'game of choice'. How many players actually choose the game? Usually it's the GM who decides what game to run and they are usually the most knowledgeable about gaming in general. There are plenty of gamers who are brought to a game by a GM without any knowledge of other RPGs or editions.


Well, I joined my Pathfinder game because someone advertised it to me and I wanted to play Pathfinder. Those who don't like Pathfinder wouldn't answer the ad.

But as you suggest, in my other group, I generally decide what to run and pitch it to the group.
 
Quote

We should ask why does 3E appeal to DMs because clearly deck building or charop bullshit is unlikely to be the reason...


Well, some DMs like the game for different reasons other than the reasons that the charop wonks want to play it (e.g., I like the pre-4e cosmology of D&D than the POS they tried to push on 4e, so if I wanted to run my game world based on 3e cosmology, I would prefer to use it with 3e or something easily compatible with it). This ends up a few different ways:

1 - The DM is okay running for charop wonks, and the group is mostly composed of those, and they have haywire fun
2 - The DM dons the viking hat and nerfs all the charop nonsense. True charop wonks walk away at that point, though many who are happy to just play will ride it out.
3 - The DM is a pushover and the group is mixed charop wonks and normal players, and the later quickly get disgruntled, and the group falls apart.

It seems like the determined bashers are assuming that most or all cases fall into category 3, though I see 1 or 2 as being just as likely. More likely still, I find that many groups really don't have anyone who has ever seen the charop forums.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 09:56:42 PM
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;574980
I game with my friends almost exclusively, and I'm rarely able to drag them kicking and screaming into a game.

That said, I would sure be curious as to just what the appeal of 3E is to GMs, other than "easy to find players", because I found it a nightmare to work with.


You answered your own question.  The reason I prefer Fantasy Craft is because 3x/Pathfinder players can grok it quickly but more importantly it highly modular. You can remove whole subsystems like 2e and never notice a difference.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 21, 2012, 10:09:33 PM
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;574980
That said, I would sure be curious as to just what the appeal of 3E is to GMs, other than "easy to find players", because I found it a nightmare to work with.


I found it pretty easy to work with. A consistent core system that was fairly straightforward to extend and had a LOAD of creative material written for it.

That said, there are things I did find problematic (prerequisites of the sort that made creation of complex NPCs more difficult), some things I flat out ditched (xp awards by CR, and eventually, the entire xp system), and I didn't get hung up on stuff like "heeding every sample DC in the book" that I understand some DMs who had problems did.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 21, 2012, 10:10:22 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;574982
You answered your own question.  The reason I prefer Fantasy Craft is because


Because you are a fine woman of discerning taste, obviously. ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 10:20:40 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;574987
Because you are a fine woman of discerning taste, obviously. ;)


Flattery will get you everywhere sir. :curtsies:
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Fiasco on August 21, 2012, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: Tommy Brownell;574980
I game with my friends almost exclusively, and I'm rarely able to drag them kicking and screaming into a game.

That said, I would sure be curious as to just what the appeal of 3E is to GMs, other than "easy to find players", because I found it a nightmare to work with.


I don't question your experience and clearly YMMV but I would expect in many groups the DM has a big say in what game is played and even more so in what isn't.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Tommy Brownell on August 21, 2012, 10:50:38 PM
Quote from: Fiasco;574990
I don't question your experience and clearly YMMV but I would expect in many groups the DM has a big say in what game is played and even more so in what isn't.


The way it usually goes here is I pitch the games I wanna play, and we play what they're interested in. So, yeah...I have a big say (I'm also the one that buys all the books)...but if folks don't wanna play, we switch to something we wanna play.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 21, 2012, 11:50:11 PM
Quote from: Fiasco;574979
We should ask why does 3E appeal to DMs because clearly deck building or charop bullshit is unlikely to be the reason...

I mostly only GM 3rd/pathfinder. I suppose it hasn't been much of a problem for me mostly because my regular players don't minmax/know the rules that well and the times I have had minmaxxers at my table I A) talked to them about the expected powerlevel of the game and entered into a gentleman's agreement to not have them break my game world or B) never got to a high enough level for it to matter. I frankly enjoy running 3rd/pathfinder the most with people who either already know the system or are generically fun to game with period.

As for why it appeals to me, as a GM, over most other systems I'd have to say: I know the system the best (I started gaming with it), player empowerment (it's important to me no matter what side of the screen I'm on), the math is easy and makes it easy to house rule, it has a lot of material floating around for it, and it has the power level (at least at mid level) that I want in a setting.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 21, 2012, 11:59:39 PM
Quote from: MGuy;575014
I mostly only GM 3rd/pathfinder. I suppose it hasn't been much of a problem for me mostly because my regular players don't minmax/know the rules that well and the times I have had minmaxxers at my table I A) talked to them about the expected powerlevel of the game and entered into a gentleman's agreement to not have them break my game world or B) never got to a high enough level for it to matter. I frankly enjoy running 3rd/pathfinder the most with people who either already know the system or are generically fun to game with period.

As for why it appeals to me, as a GM, over most other systems I'd have to say: I know the system the best (I started gaming with it), player empowerment (it's important to me no matter what side of the screen I'm on), the math is easy and makes it easy to house rule, it has a lot of material floating around for it, and it has the power level (at least at mid level) that I want in a setting.


Makes sense, I won't run it because it's a half measure to me but I love playing it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: 1989 on August 22, 2012, 12:21:45 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;574989
Flattery will get you everywhere sir. :curtsies:


I see nipples on your avatar.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 22, 2012, 12:44:01 AM
Quote from: 1989;575019
I see nipples on your avatar.


I did go subtle. It's Liz Phair, I wasn't sure if her mesh tee would go over well.:D

Is it against site rules? If so, I can switch it. But in my experience guys seem to like nipples. I have no idea why, given we all have them.

I figure if Sacrosanct is using actresses I am trying to stick with singers to give you guys a tour of my favorite singers and music. :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Wolf, Richard on August 22, 2012, 03:10:22 AM
@Lord Mistborn,

I've agreed with some of the things you've said about 3.x, but you are pretty off point regarding both 4e and Pathfinder.

Starting with Pathfinder; their version of the Fighter is clearly more powerful, and their casters are less so by virtue of not having any version of Persist Spell and nerfed Polymorphs despite any other bells and whistles they might have gotten.  The removal of the ability of spellcasters to basically never run out the duration of their magical buffs alone is a humongous nerf (that was totally needed), and restores a lot of 'that D&D feel' to Pathfinder, by forcing casters to make hard choices about what spells to use and when to use them instead of making basically all of their low level buff spells essentially permanent.

A lot of the Fighter Feats were fixed in Pathfinder making them more useful in non-situational cases, there are more and better Feat chains, and from what I can see no deliberate "Timmy cards".  

Vital Strike, which is about as core to the Fighter in Pathfinder as Weapon Specialization was in 2e, also works to solve the overall mobility problem by giving you the option to add extra damage dice on a standard attack instead of using the Full Attack option (which is rarely an option).

The Fighter is still "weak" by comparison to the Wizard in Pathfinder, but the gap is significantly narrowed.

As for 4e, I also found combat boring, but the whole "too much healing" is going to be party specific (that is a party with too many healers is going to have too much healing, and admittedly 'healers' seem to be more popular in 4e than they were in any previous edition).  Monsters do in fact do a lot more damage than in 3.x to compensate for the extra player HP, and this is only more true with the monsters released after MM1.  Player HP is only significantly increased in 4e compared to monster damage at level 1.  Level 1 characters in 4e are more survivable than their 3e counterpart, but that advantage quickly erodes as you level.

The thing with 4e is that you are expected to blow most of your resources every encounter, which includes your HP, and your one Second Wind, which leaves each encounter with a lot more people close to dropping.  IMO characters getting close to death and getting knocked out and dying is more common in 4e than it is in 3e.  The difference being that in 4e you can go from a near death experience to full combat effectiveness with a 5-minute rest.

HP isn't a daily resource in 4e, which is why characters aren't that hard to kill.  Killing a 4e character due to attrition of their resources almost never happens, because the game doesn't run on resource management for the most part.  Monsters in 3.x weren't even designed with the goal in mind to be able to wipe a fully rested, "resourced" party, but be able to eventually whittle them down to such a point where the party is taking greater risks with each successive encounter.  

I think there are merits to both designs, and they obviously create a different feel.  I think combat in 4e is not fun for probably different reasons than you do, which aren't germane, but I do think that the HP/Healing system in 4e is pretty good (and better in actual play than it first looked on paper), and that lifted and put in a different game for the purpose of emulating that "every fight is deadly" feel would work well.

The only character that resembles your critique is a Fighter archetype whose name I can't recall from one of the first 4e splats that lets you replenish a Temporary HP pool on each melee strike making them far more durable than was sensible (ie getting ~12 HP healing every round basically).

Segueing into the 'Character Balance' portion of the thread, the reason why it is important isn't necessarily about "overshadowing" and other players feeling diminished compared to their fellows.

To meaningfully challenge said Temp HP Fighter I had to throw opponents at the party whose damage output was potentially lethal to the Fighter, which means that these same opponents were almost guaranteed lethal to the rest of the party, and that this problem doesn't occur given relative parity (which is totally ironic that my best example is from the edition obsessed with total parity).

The problem with Hercules in the party with a bunch of mundane Hellenes is that when the party encounters the Lemaean Hydra, every single character in the party but Hercules is almost definitely going to die.

Real life sorts people based on their abilities in the exact same way.  The idea of Barney Fife on SWAT might be fun as a gimmick every once in a while but its' not remotely realistic, for the exact same reason it doesn't work mechanically in-game most of the time.  Any mission that Barney Fife is acceptable for doesn't need SWAT in the first place, and any mission that requires a SWAT team is so far over Fife's head skill wise that his presence could only be played for laughs.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 22, 2012, 03:28:13 AM
Wow, a book for what could be said in a sentence or three.  Shades of Ben and Spike.  The issue is simple.  No full regeneration after a full rest. Seriously.  Get mean, get a Viking Hat, grow a set..do something.  It really is a non-issue. I did say I'm a bitch correct?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Orpheo on August 22, 2012, 04:33:46 AM
What is the message of this thread?

Being the best that you can be at what you do is wrong?
You can't make D&D (class-based) characters "optimal" and be a roleplayer?
3E is the game of choice for assholes so if you play 3E you're an asshole?

Python logic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2012, 07:42:49 AM
Quote from: Orpheo;575102
What is the message of this thread?

Being the best that you can be at what you do is wrong?
You can't make D&D (class-based) characters "optimal" and be a roleplayer?
3E is the game of choice for assholes so if you play 3E you're an asshole?

Python logic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g)


Wanting to 'be the best' implies that there IS a best (a thus a worst), which is a feature of competitive gaming.

Some people do not need an rpg system to be competitive.

3E was designed to cater to these impulses through the rewarding of system mastery, and the deliberate inclusion of superior/inferior options. The game was marketed to the player base in piecemeal power-ups akin to booster packs. This type of sales strategy works best when the customer believes that the product provides a performance edge.

A performance edge only matters if there is competition.

Therefore for those who prefer 3E as their favorite system, on some level, the competitive nature of the game holds some attraction. A side effect of such mechanical focus is a fixation on deck building and rules constructs instead of whats actually happening in the game.

Considering such people assholes is one possible extreme interpretation of these preferences. I don't automatically consider those who don't share my gaming preferences to be assholes, but that doesn't mean I would want to GM a table full of them either.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 08:16:05 AM
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575080
@Lord Mistborn,

I've agreed with some of the things you've said about 3.x, but you are pretty off point regarding both 4e and Pathfinder.

Starting with Pathfinder; their version of the Fighter is clearly more powerful,.

How so. Charger feats don't exist anymore and the CMB/CMD system seems desinged to make tripping terribad, and for the privilage of still not being able to trip somthing in Pathfinder you need two feats rather than one. Also
They. Nerfed. Power Attack. What. The. Hell.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575080
and their casters are less so by virtue of not having any version of Persist Spell and nerfed Polymorphs despite any other bells and whistles they might have gotten.  The removal of the ability of spellcasters to basically never run out the duration of their magical buffs alone is a humongous nerf (that was totally needed),.

Ha ha ho ho he he lol roflcopter,

Wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder.

Casters in Pathfinder still get to ride the crazy train that is being a caster in  3.X. Pazio made the caster base classes better. They haven't made any good caster PrCs yet but it's only a matter of time. Polymoph nerffed, that's cool. A lot of the other CO favorites were nerfed, but nerffing some spells doesn't control caster power, because they can cast other spells. Not only that, Pazio then printed more spells and since they can't into game balance some of them are bananas.

I was just browsing the pfsrd and found Icy Prison. This thing would have been the holy grail in 3e a staple that every COer would take and it would have single-handedly made Evocation a school worth taking.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575080
and restores a lot of 'that D&D feel' to Pathfinder, by forcing casters to make hard choices about what spells to use and when to use them instead of making basically all of their low level buff spells essentially permanent.

People still walk around with buffs all day in Pathfinder just not all of the buffs like some builds in 3e. Extend spell is still a feat and 1hr level is still a duration. You don't need buffs as much because noone wants to melee in Pathfind and you have better hd and cast Icy Prison.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575080
A lot of the Fighter Feats were fixed in Pathfinder making them more useful in non-situational cases, there are more and better Feat chains, and from what I can see no deliberate "Timmy cards".

Vital Strike, which is about as core to the Fighter in Pathfinder as Weapon Specialization was in 2e, also works to solve the overall mobility problem by giving you the option to add extra damage dice on a standard attack instead of using the Full Attack option (which is rarely an option).

The Fighter is still "weak" by comparison to the Wizard in Pathfinder, but the gap is significantly narrowed.".


+2d6 weapon damage that's cute realy, I'm sure the monsters ported right over from 3.5 are shakeing. Still doesn't stack up to real melee in 3e who have pounce, or are warblades who say fuck that shit and just standard action for double damge.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Orpheo on August 22, 2012, 08:17:45 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;575127
Wanting to 'be the best' implies that there IS a best (a thus a worst), which is a feature of competitive gaming.

Some people do not need an rpg system to be competitive.

3E was designed to cater to these impulses through the rewarding of system mastery, and the deliberate inclusion of superior/inferior options. The game was marketed to the player base in piecemeal power-ups akin to booster packs. This type of sales strategy works best when the customer believes that the product provides a performance edge.

A performance edge only matters if there is competition.

Therefore for those who prefer 3E as their favorite system, on some level, the competitive nature of the game holds some attraction. A side effect of such mechanical focus is a fixation on deck building and rules constructs instead of whats actually happening in the game.

Considering such people assholes is one possible extreme interpretation of these preferences. I don't automatically consider those who don't share my gaming preferences to be assholes, but that doesn't mean I would want to GM a table full of them either.


It is competitive, I'm competing against the deadly creatures that I'll encounter. One day I may find myself up against a dragon and I want my whatever character to be the best he can be to survive and protect his comrades. No one sets out to aim for mediocrity. Ali didn't proclaim himself to be the most mediocre before and after a fight

Perhaps I should have a word with my daughter and ask her to tone down her grades?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2012, 08:29:31 AM
Quote from: Orpheo;575134
It is competitive, I'm competing against the deadly creatures that I'll encounter. One day I may find myself up against a dragon and I want my whatever character to be the best he can be to survive and protect his comrades. No one sets out to aim for mediocrity. Ali didn't proclaim himself to be the most mediocre before and after a fight

Perhaps I should have a word with my daughter and ask her to tone down her grades?


If you are in adversarial mode with your DM then you are already getting it wrong to say nothing of the competition with your fellow players. A minefield of bad choices exists only to prove who knows their shit from the n00bs.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 22, 2012, 09:12:32 AM
Quote from: Marleycat;575026
But in my experience guys seem to like nipples. I have no idea why, given we all have them.


Because they are one of the last 'covered' locations. Asimov wrote something I found interesting that I would go Google if I wasn't on my phone. Basically the gist is, if I put my hand on your thigh when we're on the beach, and you're in a swim suit, it's no big deal. But if I put that same hand on that same thigh, but up your dress, it changes everything.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 22, 2012, 09:15:26 AM
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575080
@Lord Mistborn,

I've agreed with some of the things you've said about 3.x, but you are pretty off point regarding both 4e and Pathfinder.

Starting with Pathfinder; their version of the Fighter is clearly more powerful, and their casters are less so by virtue of not having any version of Persist Spell and nerfed Polymorphs despite any other bells and whistles they might have gotten.  The removal of the ability of spellcasters to basically never run out the duration of their magical buffs alone is a humongous nerf (that was totally needed), and restores a lot of 'that D&D feel' to Pathfinder, by forcing casters to make hard choices about what spells to use and when to use them instead of making basically all of their low level buff spells essentially permanent.

A lot of the Fighter Feats were fixed in Pathfinder making them more useful in non-situational cases, there are more and better Feat chains, and from what I can see no deliberate "Timmy cards".  

Vital Strike, which is about as core to the Fighter in Pathfinder as Weapon Specialization was in 2e, also works to solve the overall mobility problem by giving you the option to add extra damage dice on a standard attack instead of using the Full Attack option (which is rarely an option).

The Fighter is still "weak" by comparison to the Wizard in Pathfinder, but the gap is significantly narrowed.

As for 4e, I also found combat boring, but the whole "too much healing" is going to be party specific (that is a party with too many healers is going to have too much healing, and admittedly 'healers' seem to be more popular in 4e than they were in any previous edition).  Monsters do in fact do a lot more damage than in 3.x to compensate for the extra player HP, and this is only more true with the monsters released after MM1.  Player HP is only significantly increased in 4e compared to monster damage at level 1.  Level 1 characters in 4e are more survivable than their 3e counterpart, but that advantage quickly erodes as you level.

The thing with 4e is that you are expected to blow most of your resources every encounter, which includes your HP, and your one Second Wind, which leaves each encounter with a lot more people close to dropping.  IMO characters getting close to death and getting knocked out and dying is more common in 4e than it is in 3e.  The difference being that in 4e you can go from a near death experience to full combat effectiveness with a 5-minute rest.

HP isn't a daily resource in 4e, which is why characters aren't that hard to kill.  Killing a 4e character due to attrition of their resources almost never happens, because the game doesn't run on resource management for the most part.  Monsters in 3.x weren't even designed with the goal in mind to be able to wipe a fully rested, "resourced" party, but be able to eventually whittle them down to such a point where the party is taking greater risks with each successive encounter.  

I think there are merits to both designs, and they obviously create a different feel.  I think combat in 4e is not fun for probably different reasons than you do, which aren't germane, but I do think that the HP/Healing system in 4e is pretty good (and better in actual play than it first looked on paper), and that lifted and put in a different game for the purpose of emulating that "every fight is deadly" feel would work well.

The only character that resembles your critique is a Fighter archetype whose name I can't recall from one of the first 4e splats that lets you replenish a Temporary HP pool on each melee strike making them far more durable than was sensible (ie getting ~12 HP healing every round basically).

Segueing into the 'Character Balance' portion of the thread, the reason why it is important isn't necessarily about "overshadowing" and other players feeling diminished compared to their fellows.

To meaningfully challenge said Temp HP Fighter I had to throw opponents at the party whose damage output was potentially lethal to the Fighter, which means that these same opponents were almost guaranteed lethal to the rest of the party, and that this problem doesn't occur given relative parity (which is totally ironic that my best example is from the edition obsessed with total parity).

The problem with Hercules in the party with a bunch of mundane Hellenes is that when the party encounters the Lemaean Hydra, every single character in the party but Hercules is almost definitely going to die.

Real life sorts people based on their abilities in the exact same way.  The idea of Barney Fife on SWAT might be fun as a gimmick every once in a while but its' not remotely realistic, for the exact same reason it doesn't work mechanically in-game most of the time.  Any mission that Barney Fife is acceptable for doesn't need SWAT in the first place, and any mission that requires a SWAT team is so far over Fife's head skill wise that his presence could only be played for laughs.


In regards to HP in 4E;

I have observed that many 4E dm's don't seem to realize that it's not possible to rest any time you like.  "No, you can't sleep for eight hours and study spells in the Dread Lich's citadel. Yes, that is a score of Wraiths attacking you as you sleep"


My issue with healing in 4E is the "Fully heal yourself without a cleric after a 10 minute rest."

That annoys me, allthough I do understand 4E by design is tailored to a '10 combat encounter between daily full rest' model.

I just don't run games around 'number of encounters per day'; that 4E concept does not work for me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 22, 2012, 09:29:55 AM
Quote from: Orpheo;575102
What is the message of this thread?

Being the best that you can be at what you do is wrong?
You can't make D&D (class-based) characters "optimal" and be a roleplayer?


Strawmen.

Quote from: Orpheo;575134
3E is the game of choice for assholes so if you play 3E you're an asshole?


I'm not even sure I agree with the thread premise that "assholes prefer 3e", but it's not the same as "all 3e players are assholes." I'm not even a native English speaker but I can tell the difference.

Quote from: Orpheo;575134
Perhaps I should have a word with my daughter and ask her to tone down her grades?


Yeah, because a collaborative game of elf-pretending works exactly like academic life. :rolleyes:
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 09:32:48 AM
Quote from: The Butcher;575159
Strawmen.


I don't think so. There are people here in fact that have claimed that you can't do CharOP and be a role-player.

I've had people here claim that I can't use maps and minis and be a role-player.

And of course, there are people here who claim that if you're a story-gamer you can't be a role-player.

This board has a number of people with very limited views of what a role-player is.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 22, 2012, 09:38:43 AM
Quote from: gleichman;575160
I don't think so. There are people here in fact that have claimed that you can't do CharOP and be a role-player.

I've had people here claim that I can't use maps and minis and be a role-player.

And of course, there are people here who claim that if you're a story-gamer you can be a role-player.

This board has a number of people with very limited views of what a role-player is.


I don't see why a person can't do all of those and be a roleplayer.



What's the definition of a 'Story Gamer' in case I am not clear on that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 09:41:41 AM
Quote from: Bill;575162

I don't see why a person can't do all of those and be a roleplayer.


You're more reasonable than most. I wish more of the board was like you.


Quote from: Bill;575162
What's the definition of a 'Story Gamer' in case I am not clear on that.


It like everything else here, it varies by the person talking. But typically Dogs in the Vineyard, Poison'd and similar games are seen to be Story-Games
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 22, 2012, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bill;575162
What's the definition of a 'Story Gamer' in case I am not clear on that.


Quite often storygamers ARE roleplaying. It is the nature of the role that is different.

For ex, in D&D a player assumes the role of adventurer. As an adventurer, the activitites undertaken are adventures. The action of play is roleplaying the actions of a fantasy persona in a particular setting/environment. There is no 'narrative' to speak of any more than you going about your normal daily activies is a narrative. The game mechanics presume the purpose of play to roleplay a fantasy adventurer in a simulated setting.

When playing a story game, a player assumes the role (thus roleplays) of co-storyteller. This is a role encompassing a meta-persona perhaps alongside a fictional character within the story. The game mechanics presume the purpose of play is to create collaborative fiction with the other storytellers.


So indeed, many story games feature roleplaying. It is the nature of the role that differs.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 22, 2012, 09:59:53 AM
Quote from: gleichman;575160
I don't think so. There are people here in fact that have claimed that you can't do CharOP and be a role-player.

That's because one side takes CharOp to mean "the act of making any optimal decision in a not-100%-random character generation and advancement system", while the other reserves the term for "the act of generating and developing a character solely with mechanical efficiency in mind, to the detriment of game world consistency" (dickery against players of non-optimized characters optional).

Basically, the Denners are argüing that choosing a longsword over a dagger in AD&D 1e is CharOp, while the regulars are equating CharOp with Pun-Pun level antics.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 22, 2012, 10:02:13 AM
Quote from: gleichman;575160
I don't think so. There are people here in fact that have claimed that you can't do CharOP and be a role-player.

I've had people here claim that I can't use maps and minis and be a role-player.

And of course, there are people here who claim that if you're a story-gamer you can't be a role-player.

This board has a number of people with very limited views of what a role-player is.


At my gaming table I defend people who char op quite a bit (bill can verofy this as he has played in a number of my campaigns and been present during a number of playtstyle discussions). For what it is worth, I kind of like GMing for a group of optimizers. It forces you as the GM to get to know the rules in way you might otherwise not have to (i really didn't start digging deep into 3e until I ran for a group of optimizers, who also happened to be a great bunch of guys). What is more they all made characters and role played them. However I do think there is an important difference between someone who prioritizes Optimization and someone who prioritizes Roleplay in terms of the kinds of characters you make. Characters that are not optimized can be interesting and fun, and people with more of a Roleplay bent will persue these sorts of PCs. With optimizers, the character is built to be highly effective at something (and by optimize I really mean doing somehting that pushes your character's effective to the limit in one area, not just taking a single advantageous feat or spell). I have no problem with optimizers, but being aware of these differences is important in a mixed group because the two sides do often come into conflict.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 10:08:03 AM
Quote from: The Butcher;575173
Basically, the Denners are argüing that choosing a longsword over a dagger in AD&D 1e is CharOp, while the regulars are equating CharOp with Pun-Pun level antics.


Even if the CharOP player is performing "the act of generating and developing a character solely with mechanical efficiency in mind, to the detriment of game world consistency", the charge of them not role-playing may well be completely false on two levels.

The first is that one can't optimize "to the detriment of game world consistency". If the game rules representing the physics and reality of the setting allow it- it's consistent with the physics and reality of the setting by definition.

Any disagreement with that means that chosen system was a poor choice that didn't match what the GM and at least some players wanted. It needs to either be amended or replaced.


The second point is that even if a player isn't 'role-playing' during character generation, there is nothing preventing him from doing so thereafter.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 10:10:16 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575174
I have no problem with optimizers, but being aware of these differences is important in a mixed group because the two sides do often come into conflict.


I agree with this.

What I don't agree with is the hatred and charges of "they are not role-playing and are sub-human" that many here hurl at them- while ignoring other opinions (like your wisdom here) on the matter.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 22, 2012, 10:13:04 AM
Quote from: Bill;575162
I don't see why a person can't do all of those and be a roleplayer.


"Can't"?  I think in the lens of an argument, you're right.  A person can be good at all the aspects of RPGs simultaneously, and can enjoy them all equally.  But, IME, people are better at some things than others.  Michael Jordan doesn't seem to be much of an astrophysicist or a musician, no matter how good of a basketball player he may have been.  And this isn't a slight to him, such as it wouldn't be a slight to expect good CharOp gamers to be weaker roleplayers.  They are different talents, and while not necessarily exclusive, they might not always occur together.  So in conversation, where I might say the latest album by Michael Jordan can't be good, the word flies.

Make sense?

Quote from: Bill;575162

What's the definition of a 'Story Gamer' in case I am not clear on that.


My own understanding...

Story games are thought to be collaborative events where everyone is participating in the story the Storyteller wants to tell.  Story gamers prefer to be NPCs in that setting, so to speak, taking a back seat to the tale being woven in front of them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 22, 2012, 10:14:57 AM
Quote from: gleichman;575176
The first is that one can't optimize "to the detriment of game world consistency". If the game rules representing the physics and reality of the setting allow it- it's consistent with the physics and reality of the setting by definition.

Any disagreement with that means that chosen system was a poor choice that didn't match what the GM and at least some players wanted. It needs to either be amended or replaced.


So the GM and the other players must be punished for their "poor choice" by suffering the gloating of the player who discovers and exploits a rules loophole? Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. Even Blizzard issues patches. Every game is an ongoing experiment.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 10:17:51 AM
Quote from: The Butcher;575181
So the GM and the other players must be punished for their "poor choice" by suffering the gloating of the player who discovers and exploits a rules loophole? Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. Even Blizzard issues patches. Every game is an ongoing experiment.


As I said, the game needs to be amended or replaced. I didn't say it had to be lived with.

A disagreement may arise at that point on if the admended game or its replacement was a wise choice. Both sides may or may not be debating this on its merits. Whatever the case, such disagreement should be resolved in the same way any disagreement is by the parties involved. This may result in people leaving the group. Such is the nature of social conflict.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 22, 2012, 10:25:12 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;575179
"Can't"?  I think in the lens of an argument, you're right.  A person can be good at all the aspects of RPGs simultaneously, and can enjoy them all equally.  But, IME, people are better at some things than others.  Michael Jordan doesn't seem to be much of an astrophysicist or a musician, no matter how good of a basketball player he may have been.  And this isn't a slight to him, such as it wouldn't be a slight to expect good CharOp gamers to be weaker roleplayers.  They are different talents, and while not necessarily exclusive, they might not always occur together.  So in conversation, where I might say the latest album by Michael Jordan can't be good, the word flies.

Make sense?



My own understanding...

Story games are thought to be collaborative events where everyone is participating in the story the Storyteller wants to tell.  Story gamers prefer to be NPCs in that setting, so to speak, taking a back seat to the tale being woven in front of them.



As a player I guess I prefer to be in the spotlight, or supporting another character that is in the spotlight. The setting and story to me are incredibly important, but not the focus for me. I like to see what happens to the characters in the setting.

Never really thought about this Story Game concept in all my years of gaming. :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 22, 2012, 10:31:33 AM
Quote from: The Butcher;575181
So the GM and the other players must be punished for their "poor choice" by suffering the gloating of the player who discovers and exploits a rules loophole?


It is possible that this wasn't intentional, but that Monte Cook link earlier shows that "rewarding mastery" is baked in to 3e's design.  It is perpetuated by the splat books, where each new book is like a new foil pack of CCG cards, again by design.

Now you could argue that gloating isn't among the desired 'rewards for mastery', but it has, at a minimum, evolved as one of the most popular.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Orpheo on August 22, 2012, 10:32:56 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;575138
If you are in adversarial mode with your DM then you are already getting it wrong to say nothing of the competition with your fellow players. A minefield of bad choices exists only to prove who knows their shit from the n00bs.


Who's said anything about the DM being the adversary. I'm fighting the giants, dragons and beholders.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Orpheo on August 22, 2012, 10:47:50 AM
Quote from: The Butcher;575159
Strawmen.


No. They're not even my arguments, they are the stupid subtext of this  poor thread.

Quote from: The Butcher;575159
I'm not even sure I agree with the thread premise that "assholes prefer 3e", but it's not the same as "all 3e players are assholes." I'm not even a native English speaker but I can tell the difference.


The premise ... No let's be honest, the title says one thing, which I understand perfectly well, thanks, and the thread says something else.

Quote from: The Butcher;575159
Yeah, because a collaborative game of elf-pretending works exactly like academic life. :rolleyes:


Being a non-native English speaker, you should still understand metaphor right? If I was a fighter as a job, say a boxer, a judo player or a marine, surely I train to be the best that I can be? Not because I wan't to be better than the guy standing next to me, but because I want to be better than the guy who wants to fight me. Anyone that has a job doing anything knows that this is how it works. Why should it be different for my fantasy fighter? But if it please you to belittle my point as being about "elf-pretending" as in, "games are serious business," then it beats me what the hell you're doing in the thread at all.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 22, 2012, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: Orpheo;575200

Being a non-native English speaker, you should still understand metaphor right? If I was a fighter as a job, say a boxer, a judo player or a marine, surely I train to be the best that I can be? Not because I wan't to be better than the guy standing next to me, but because I want to be better than the guy who wants to fight me. Anyone that has a job doing anything knows that this is how it works. Why should it be different for my fantasy fighter? But if it please you to belittle my point as being about "elf-pretending" as in, "games are serious business," then it beats me what the hell you're doing in the thread at all.


You are completely glossing over the concept of half-assery, which implies to me that you have had no contact with the corporate world thus far.  Let me tell you, I know literally thousands of examples of people whose work is only passably tolerable.  These workers know that they suck at what they do, and really only monitor their progress in terms of whether or not it will cost them their jobs.  Being the best in the corporate world typically means outshining your boss, working harder than your peers, and/or doing any number of other unhealthy things.

So your notion is far from an altruism in reality...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 22, 2012, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;575191
It is possible that this wasn't intentional, but that Monte Cook link earlier shows that "rewarding mastery" is baked in to 3e's design.  It is perpetuated by the splat books, where each new book is like a new foil pack of CCG cards, again by design.

Now you could argue that gloating isn't among the desired 'rewards for mastery', but it has, at a minimum, evolved as one of the most popular.


There are a lot of things that have been said about 'trap options' in 3.5 (or in Magic: the Gathering).  To be fair, if you have more than two options, you're going to have some that are superior in some situations and some that are inferior in other situations.  

For example, I'm playing in a campaign that is set in a 'undead post-apocalypse' with a handful of survivors at a post warding off aimless of bands of undead monsters.  It looks like we're about to be the target of an organized well-led band of intelligent undead.  We all knew what the campaign would be before it started (oh, and clerics aren't allowed).  Interestingly, nobody played a rogue.  The fact that undead have blanket immunity probably figured into that decision.  Even a good option (sneak attack) isn't a good option if the campaign doesn't support it (every opponent is immune to sneak attack).  

If you considered the options in 3.5 to be a 'deck' (which is stupid, especially since everyone has full access to every 'card' - no you can't have this until you spend $400 getting the right card), different options would be better or worse depending on the nature of the campaign.  The designers, even if trying to make relatively balanced options can't possibly consider every possible combination - at least, not with the number of options in 3.5.  There are some 'general guidelines' they can use to keep abusable combinations to a minimum (for example, you can't stack bonuses of the same type) that can really help.  Most of the truly egregious examples of 'munchkinism' require either a permissive ruling or violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the rules.  

I fully agree that with the number of options available, it's possible to make a more effective character or a less effective character, and awareness of the rules (ie, rules mastery) can help with those choices.  A character that picks 'randomly' when gaining a new attribute should be significantly worse than a character that chooses abilities that support a theme.  But a character shouldn't NEED to pick randomly in order to choose abilities, even without extensive rules mastery.  The absolute WEAKEST options need to be reconsidered or improved if they're truly 'traps'.  Likewise, teh absolute BEST options need to have their effectiveness reduced.  

But despite the number of people saying 'all charopers want the BEST character', if you look at people's 'builds', you'll see that they're all very different.  Most people make a character that they're interested in playing, and while it may include an interesting combination or two, it's usually not 'broken'.  It usually isn't THE BEST because the number of 'THE BEST' options are pretty limited, and most people aren't interested in 'WINNING'.  If that were the case, all of the charopers would play druids all the time, and it wouldn't even be an issue.  

There is a certain portion of the player base that enjoys thinking about characters and character options.  Sometimes they highlight a build that 'breaks' a certain aspect of the game.  Pointing that out doesn't necessarily mean they are advocating for people to play that 'build'.  But when someone finds out that there is an 'unbeatable strategy' with checkers (assuming you go first), some people find that interesting.  Looking at a 'power build' is instructive and interesting, even if a number of others don't slavishly follow it.  I've never seen anyone try to bring Pun-Pun to my game.  What would be the fun in actually playing it?  The fun comes in showing how it can be built using the rules.  

Third edition is my favorite in large part because of how easy it makes it (relative to other editions) to customize your character.  I've played more 3.x characters than probably any edition of the game, and I've certainly played at more spectrum of the levels in 3.x than in prior editions (usually starting from 1st) and I really enjoy that each character really does feel unique.  Not just my characters - all the characters I've adventured with have had some really unique features.  Some of it is simple backstory; some is interesting class combinations; some involves a template.  

This was all new stuff when 3.x came out, so there are some things that they just didn't take far enough.  Further, some of the better ideas stopped being supported by the SRD.  I think lack of OGL content is what started to drain the momentum out of 3.x.  Third party publishers really helped keep the game fresh when they could use new material.  Once 'official' material dried up, 3rd party designers were much more limited in what 'cool stuff' they could include in their products.  If WotC had done a better job of providing interesting adventures, they probably could have gone much further - but they didn't.  Since 3rd parties couldn't include things like 'True Namers' in their products, True Namers bascially just didn't show up in people's games (well that, and they actually probably suck).  

In any case, there are probably some assholes who play 3rd edition.  There are probably plenty of wonderful people that enjoy the edition, too.  And I think 3.x has enough to appeal to a wide range of different play types (depending in part on group focus).  While it's easy to have incompatible play styles, the system itself is robust enough to allow for players from very different gaming styles to use the same rules to play very different games in a satisfying way.  

Earlier editions don't satisfy me as a gamer in large part because they lack the customization available in 3.x.  I can make new personalities all day in 2nd edition, but in 3.x I can make new personalities and represent them with some mechanical crunch, too.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Imperator on August 22, 2012, 11:07:00 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;574872
I'm saying that 3rd edition rewards asshole-ish behavior, and therefore it appeals to certain people precisely BECAUSE they were assholes in the first place.

Assholes existed in gaming long before 3rd edition ever came out, but that's where they found their home.

Again, I disagree. You can say the same about any complex game: GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster. The OP is bullshit because you can do the same with MERP.

Quote
What other goal can there be, honestly?

Many, and none of those are our fucking business unless it is our table.

I play for immersion, but other people may play to hang out with friends and not give a fuck about immersion. Or play to solve problems, to have TEH BEZTEZT WARRIOR EVAH or just to kick ass and vent steam, and not care about immersion. And it is only a problem if it happens at your table and it clashes with your goals.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Orpheo on August 22, 2012, 11:09:54 AM
Quote from: mcbobbo;575202
You are completely glossing over the concept of half-assery, which implies to me that you have had no contact with the corporate world thus far.  Let me tell you, I know literally thousands of examples of people whose work is only passably tolerable.  These workers know that they suck at what they do, and really only monitor their progress in terms of whether or not it will cost them their jobs.  Being the best in the corporate world typically means outshining your boss, working harder than your peers, and/or doing any number of other unhealthy things.

So your notion is far from an altruism in reality...


Half-assery is a given. I don't aim for it though. I have plenty of corporate sector experience and public sector experience. So you have inferred something incorrectly, which isn't surprising because I have previously implied nothing about my work experience.

I don't care about the "literally thousands" of people that you know that are just passable.They don't want to be better. They never will be. Doesn't mean that those who are should strive for mediocrity.

Yes it is far from altruism. Didn't argue that it was. But when I'm playing D&D my character cares about the safety of his comrades, after all, he needs them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 11:17:35 AM
Quote from: The Butcher;575173
That's because one side takes CharOp to mean "the act of making any optimal decision in a not-100%-random character generation and advancement system", while the other reserves the term for "the act of generating and developing a character solely with mechanical efficiency in mind, to the detriment of game world consistency" (dickery against players of non-optimized characters optional).

Basically, the Denners are argüing that choosing a longsword over a dagger in AD&D 1e is CharOp, while the regulars are equating CharOp with Pun-Pun level antics.

No one has ever advocated playing Theory-Op at anyones game table, and Pun-Pun doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance as Theory-Op.

Minmaxboards has even moved away from "builds". Most opitimizing guides these days tend to be handbook style with all the options for a class rated by how good the they are. I think thats a beter way to do thing than convaluted builds. You don't need to take all Best options or never take any Worst ones just try not to take to many of them.

Quote from: mcbobbo;575191
It is possible that this wasn't intentional, but that Monte Cook link earlier shows that "rewarding mastery" is baked in to 3e's design.  It is perpetuated by the splat books, where each new book is like a new foil pack of CCG cards, again by design.

I could see some feats being bad on purpose. Entire classes being deliberatly bad seems a bridge too far.
None of the post-PHB classes where a good out of the box as the Druid, very few of them are as bad as the Monk (one is worse). I find it hard to belive that WotC was trying to rais the power level of the game.
I find it hard to recomend playing 3.5 without splats. Some of them improve the game so much that a magical fairy will appear and give everyone free cake.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 22, 2012, 11:27:08 AM
Quote from: gleichman;575178
I agree with this.

What I don't agree with is the hatred and charges of "they are not role-playing and are sub-human" that many here hurl at them- while ignoring other opinions (like your wisdom here) on the matter.


I don't consider optimizers or powergamers not roleplaying or subhuman. When someone at my table says anything to that effect, i just point out it is a different playstyle, they are not neccesarily trying to ruin the game for anyone or take away from anyone else's experience (but i do think in a mixed group it can lead to bad feelings). My only point for disagreeing with stuff like the stormwind fallacy is it glosses over some important differences between optimizers and people more focused on the rolepay side that emerge during play and can be problematic if you ignore them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 11:28:48 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575223
My only point for disagreeing with stuff like the stormwind fallacy is it glosses over some important differences between optimizers and people more focused on the rolepay side that emerge during play and can be problematic if you ignore them.


I'm of the opinion that if the people focused on role-play were actually focused on role-play, they wouldn't complain about optimizers.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 22, 2012, 11:30:01 AM
Quote
Minmaxboards has even moved away from "builds". Most opitimizing guides these days tend to be handbook style with all the options for a class rated by how good the they are. I think thats a beter way to do thing than convaluted builds. You don't need to take all Best options or never take any Worst ones just try not to take to many of them.
Actually those guides are really cool. They help a person like myself build a character quick but not explicitly trying to max out. Because it gives me a framework to work from when I go through the books without taking hours to do it because I don't have the time and I don't care.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 22, 2012, 11:35:29 AM
Quote from: gleichman;575228
I'm of the opinion that if the people focused on role-play were actually focused on role-play, they wouldn't complain about optimizers.


It can be hard to focus on roleplay when too much metagaming and gamespeak is going on. But for me, the bigger issue is if all the players at the table are having fun, and feel their characters are special in some way.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 11:40:45 AM
Quote from: Bill;575233
It can be hard to focus on roleplay when too much metagaming and gamespeak is going on.


Generally that's all that's going on during character creation, even if your rolling a set of 3d6 numbers in original D&D.

If they get upset about metagaming and gamespeak during character generation, perhaps the GM should just hand out pre-gens to everyone and get the game going.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 22, 2012, 11:41:28 AM
Quote from: gleichman;575228
I'm of the opinion that if the people focused on role-play were actually focused on role-play, they wouldn't complain about optimizers.

To an extent I agree with you. I dont get worked up if someone's character outshines me. Doesn't really bother me, and I am a little puzzled when people freak out over possible disparities in play (as a player too, my feeling is if my guy sucks, let him suck). In 3E though the disparities can be so vast some players (on both sides for very different reasons) will notice and get upset. Whatever my own feelings are, as the GM that is an issue.

There is also another side to this. It isn't always about being outshined, some players find certain builds a bit hard to swallow because their mechanical effects are so over the top (especially of they are arising out of mundane abillities). I remember one player in my group made a build (and this was a while ago so hazy on specifics) who could throw a silly number of knives and do an insane amount of damage each round. For the kind of campaign we were running it just didn't fit or make much sense to the others at the table....seemed a bit too cartoon like I supppose.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 11:50:41 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575237
In 3E though the disparities can be so vast some players (on both sides for very different reasons) will notice and get upset. Whatever my own feelings are, as the GM that is an issue.


People get upset over whatever they wish to get upset over. It then falls to calmer heads to judge if it's valid or not.


Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575237

There is also another side to this. It isn't always about being outshined, some players find certain builds a bit hard to swallow because their mechanical effects are so over the top (especially of they are arising out of mundane abillities).


If it doesn't fit the setting, amend or replace the game system.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 22, 2012, 11:51:49 AM
Quote from: gleichman;575243



If it doesn't fit the setting, amend or replace the game system.


this is one reason why i no longer play 3E.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 11:53:33 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575237

There is also another side to this. It isn't always about being outshined, some players find certain builds a bit hard to swallow because their mechanical effects are so over the top (especially of they are arising out of mundane abillities).


D&D the game where people expect to fight dragons the size of city busses but still remain withing the range of an ordinary human. Seriously dude it's called E6 maybe you might want to look it up.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 22, 2012, 11:55:53 AM
Quote from: gleichman;575243
People get upset over whatever they wish to get upset over. It then falls to calmer heads to judge if it's valid or not.
.


Not my style. I tend to be flexible. Not there to treat my players like students or children. I try to facilitate games based on the personalities and expectations at the table. I am not a push over but i try to be fair and listen to what people expect from a fun game. If two peopoe are really getting agitated because one guy made a mega build that outshines them, i am going to see what I can to to best accomodate all three people.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Rum Cove on August 22, 2012, 11:56:26 AM
Quote from: Imperator;575210
You can say the same about any complex game: GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster. The OP is bullshit because you can do the same with MERP.

I'm going to make a new thread to address this.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 22, 2012, 11:58:07 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575246
D&D the game where people expect to fight dragons the size of city busses but still remain withing the range of an ordinary human. Seriously dude it's called E6 maybe you might want to look it up.


Hunh?

Have you never played a 'gritty' or 'low magic' type of game?

Every setting varies.



And no, a human warrior that fights a giant dragon is not within the range of an ordinary human. He would need magic, or supernatural powers to have any chance at all.



By the way, what is E6? I have never heard of that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 22, 2012, 11:59:34 AM
Quote from: Rum Cove;575251
Are similar complaints leveled against these games as those against 3e?

Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D?  Or is it because D&D is the most popular/recognized system?


Interesting question. I can make a Hero Character that is more optimized than any 3X character could dream of. Yet....I can't recall people being all that vocal about it in Hero.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 12:00:14 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575245
this is one reason why i no longer play 3E.


Perfectly fine.

But once you've moved on, it's no reason to endless slam those who are happy with the system and its relationship to their settings. For many people here sadly, they think that such slamming is a moral requirement.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 22, 2012, 12:01:10 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575246
D&D the game where people expect to fight dragons the size of city busses but still remain withing the range of an ordinary human. Seriously dude it's called E6 maybe you might want to look it up.


My experience is everyone's expectations bout believability are a bit different. Most people dont expect gritty realism from D&D. These are heroes after all. But people do disagree on how larger than life they are. I think most platers seem to take a cinematic approach to what is acceptible. For me, if it starts feeling too much like a video game or cartoon, it doesn't work well for me. This is totally subjective. Ymmv, but I wouldn't ignore complaints just because the game allows for characters to tangle with bus-sized dragons.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 22, 2012, 12:01:13 PM
Quote from: Bill;575258
Interesting question. I can make a Hero Character that is more optimized than any 3X character could dream of. Yet....I can't recall people being all that vocal about it in Hero.

I'm guessing it's probably because you didn't have a long history of Hero where you couldn't optimize a character (not very much anyway), and then suddenly here comes an edition of Hero where you could, and it was suddenly the focus.  I think that's the rub with D&D.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 22, 2012, 12:02:24 PM
Quote from: gleichman;575259
Perfectly fine.

But once you've moved on, it's no reason to endless slam those who are happy with the system and its relationship to their settings. For many people here sadly, they think that such slamming is a moral requirement.


I dont slam 3E. I will voice my criticisms (as i will with any game) but i dont expect othes to share my conclusions. We cant all like the same stuff.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 12:04:46 PM
Quote from: Bill;575258
Interesting question. I can make a Hero Character that is more optimized than any 3X character could dream of. Yet....I can't recall people being all that vocal about it in Hero.


HERO talks about the issue directly and at length in the rulebook itself. It's always been an issue.

It's advice is that the GM keeps a firm eye on the construction (and later XP use) of the character. HERO is a rather special case is that *anything* can be built, and thus the character of the whole setting depends upon what and how everything is built.


In my own case, all characters are generally created by the GM himself with player input. This is due to few people having an interest in HERO's construction methods (which is detailed and for an RPG rather complex) and the GM's interest in keeping everything consistent in the setting.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 12:05:21 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575263
I dont slam 3E. I will voice my criticisms (as i will with any game) but i dont expect othes to share my conclusions. We cant all like the same stuff.


I didn't say you did. I said there are many here who do.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 22, 2012, 12:10:27 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;575204

If you considered the options in 3.5 to be a 'deck' (which is stupid, especially since everyone has full access to every 'card' - no you can't have this until you spend $400 getting the right card), different options would be better or worse depending on the nature of the campaign.


This isn't so different, really.  SOMEONE would have had to purchase the books, and that same someone takes them home at night.  Considering the huge volumes of stuff available, it adds up pretty fast.  Plus I know a lot of GMs that wouldn't want to allow a player to use a book they don't personally own, or at least aren't very familiar with.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575204
The absolute WEAKEST options need to be reconsidered or improved if they're truly 'traps'.  Likewise, teh absolute BEST options need to have their effectiveness reduced.  


But doing either of these removes the degree of reward offered by the mastery, and would seem to run counter to the design of 3e.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575204
It usually isn't THE BEST because the number of 'THE BEST' options are pretty limited, and most people aren't interested in 'WINNING'.  If that were the case, all of the charopers would play druids all the time, and it wouldn't even be an issue.  


I find 'always a druid' to be 'pretty limiting', and it undermines your position here, a lot.  Though, I'd wager that you could find an inverse that was almost always true - what about 'never a monk'?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575204

In any case, there are probably some assholes who play 3rd edition.  There are probably plenty of wonderful people that enjoy the edition, too.  And I think 3.x has enough to appeal to a wide range of different play types (depending in part on group focus).  While it's easy to have incompatible play styles, the system itself is robust enough to allow for players from very different gaming styles to use the same rules to play very different games in a satisfying way.  


Going back to the premise of the thread, though, for a given 'asshole' (which includes/emphasizes Pun-Pun advocates) when presented with the whole host of RPG options, and given no other information, do you not believe they would be happier playing 3e?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kiero on August 22, 2012, 12:16:04 PM
Quote from: Bill;575255
By the way, what is E6? I have never heard of that.


E6 (http://esix.pbworks.com/f/E6v041.pdf). It's a way of altering both character advancement, and more importantly campaign worlds to constrain the worst of higher-level magic. Normal advancement is capped at level 6, after which point you get only Feats.

It's more complicated than that, but that's the jist. Critical point is, once again, it's not just the PCs who are capped, but everything in the entire campaign world.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 12:24:17 PM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575261
My experience is everyone's expectations bout believability are a bit different. Most people dont expect gritty realism from D&D. These are heroes after all. But people do disagree on how larger than life they are. I think most platers seem to take a cinematic approach to what is acceptible. For me, if it starts feeling too much like a video game or cartoon, it doesn't work well for me. This is totally subjective. Ymmv, but I wouldn't ignore complaints just because the game allows for characters to tangle with bus-sized dragons.


This is why high level D&D is so umbalanced you can power up the concept of "Warps Reality" up a much as you want, but the concept of "Weapons Guy" cannot scale without becoming increasingly weeaboo. Now I myself am a huge weeaboo so it doesn't bother me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 22, 2012, 12:38:43 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575133

Ha ha ho ho he he lol roflcopter,

Wait you're serious, let me laugh even harder.

Casters in Pathfinder still get to ride the crazy train that is being a caster in  3.X.


Without half of the loopholes that got them around the balancing factors. Concentration isn't the non-issue in pf that being a skill made it in 3.x, and all that crap that let you ignore SR in 3.5 supplements is "Sir not appearing in this game" for Pathfinder. That's not insignificant.

Quote

 Pazio made the caster base classes better. They haven't made any good caster PrCs yet but it's only a matter of time. Polymoph nerffed, that's cool. A lot of the other CO favorites were nerfed, but nerffing some spells doesn't control caster power, because they can cast other spells.


So nerfing a major problem spell doesn't impact caster power? There are still problem spells that need nerfed, but I think they hit most of those that were proving a major problem for me. Power gamers will find more, but that's nothing the viking hat can't handle.

I just got done playing a 2 year long adventure path in PF. We missed our damage machine fighter when his player was gone. In the last fight his dependable damage output won the day. Sole casualty: the wizard. And nobody was making dumb decisions or playing bad. I think we need to dispense with this TBP fantasy of how Pathfinder plays.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 22, 2012, 12:49:38 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575285

I just got done playing a 2 year long adventure path in PF. We missed our damage machine fighter when his player was gone. In the last fight his dependable damage output won the day. Sole casualty: the wizard. And nobody was making dumb decisions or playing bad. I think we need to dispense with this TBP fantasy of how Pathfinder plays.


Yes, Pf did nerf a bunch of spells but spell casters don't need the truly broken spells and loopholes to stay ahead. I have a core wizard right now in a Thunderdome contest to prove just that. While PF did try t o close some of the most obvious loopholes (That most people don't let fly at their table anyway) they gave the casters more options (ranging from useless to obviously superior). The fighter is still stuck playing the numbers game.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 01:00:59 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575285
Without half of the loopholes that got them around the balancing factors. Concentration isn't the non-issue in pf that being a skill made it in 3.x, and all that crap that let you ignore SR in 3.5 supplements is "Sir not appearing in this game" for Pathfinder. That's not insignificant..

Spells that are SR:No in Pathfinder Transmute Rock to Mud, Summon Monster I-IX any Wall of X spell worth taking. I'm don't think my Wizard is going to have any problems. The best spells are the ones that target no people and the allow no saving throw or SR.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575285
So nerfing a major problem spell doesn't impact caster power? There are still problem spells that need nerfed, but I think they hit most of those that were proving a major problem for me. Power gamers will find more, but that's nothing the viking hat can't handle.

If spell X, Y, and Z are encounter enders and you nerf X and Y then people will cast Z. Also "no viking hats at the table" apperently needs to be part of the rules of the game, just like "the person who brings out a fumble chart will be force-fed the paper it's prited on."
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575285
I just got done playing a 2 year long adventure path in PF. We missed our damage machine fighter when his player was gone. In the last fight his dependable damage output won the day. Sole casualty: the wizard. And nobody was making dumb decisions or playing bad. I think we need to dispense with this TBP fantasy of how Pathfinder plays.

Dependable damage, in Pathfinder. From a Fighter. You are aware that this is the game that nerfed Power Attack. I'll bet Fighters are outdamaged by the Summoner's hand puppet.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 22, 2012, 01:03:00 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;575273
Going back to the premise of the thread, though, for a given 'asshole' (which includes/emphasizes Pun-Pun advocates) when presented with the whole host of RPG options, and given no other information, do you not believe they would be happier playing 3e?


Still catching up, but no.  GURPS.  That's my experience, anyway.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 22, 2012, 01:04:16 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575279
This is why high level D&D is so umbalanced you can power up the concept of "Warps Reality" up a much as you want, but the concept of "Weapons Guy" cannot scale without becoming increasingly weeaboo. Now I myself am a huge weeaboo so it doesn't bother me.


I dont think that is true. i believe it can be done without weeaboo. Bill and I made a game deigned to preserve the reality bending nature of magic but keep fighters the top dog in fights. It basically came down to two things: casting time that make super potent spells very hard to pull off during combat and serious consequences for miscasts. In a fight the guy with the best armor and who knows how to swing a sword best tended to come out on top. But out of combat spells were highly effective.

I think earlier editions of D&D did a pretty good job of this myself. But we have already had those debates dozens of times this month.

Keep in mind weeabo is a bit subjective. For me it is enough to bake high numbers into the fighter and ake the mage feeble pysically. It becones weeabo, to me, when the fighter starts possessing quasi spell like abilities that come from himself.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Imperator on August 22, 2012, 01:46:19 PM
Quote from: Rum Cove;575251
I'm going to make a new thread to address this.


By all means.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 22, 2012, 02:12:37 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897
It has every thing to with the Storwind Fallacy moron.


No..it doesn't.

The Stormwind Fallacy is the idea that one can't be an optimizer and a role-player.

So basically, the guy playing a STR 10 Fighter who wields a club is supposedly roleplaying, while the guy playing a STR 18/00 Fighter who specializes in Two-handed swords is not.

I said nothing like this.

What I said is that the 3E charop culture means that all substantive decisions about your character are made away from the table. In older editions, it mattered how you responded to a scenario during actual gameplay. In 3E, your problems are solved by what's already on your sheet.

This has fuck all to do with role-playing, but has everythign to do with gameplay.
I'm sure that the wheezing, autistic cricle jerk that you call a game has plenty of talking in character.

Stop strawmanning, you disingenuous weasel.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897

-You claim that 3e encourages minmaxing.


It does.

However, my argument isn't ABOUT min-maxxing. Either interact with my actual argument or shut the fuck up.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897

-My counter claim is that an system that allows choices at character generation allows minmaxing, the larger the number of choices the system allows the more potential minmaxing exists.


I don't give a shit.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897

Further more you have failed to prove any harm caused by optimization.


I told you exactly why optimization is harmful. You chose to ignore my answer.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897

You claim optimization reduces the potential for roleplaying, this is the Stormwind Fallacy


I claimed no such thing. Stop trying to change the argument.

Are you or are you not a cunt?

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897

The only other argument that you have made is that optimization causes divergence in PC ability to contribute to the group. You clearly do not care about that.


What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you dyslexic? Are you reading words other than the ones I am typing?

Or are you just a liar?

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897

Wow full retard. So it's fine if random stats give a player an advantage but not if optimization does, let me repackage that.


As myself and others have pointed out numerous times, putting your highest rolled stat into the primary attribute for your class is WAY different than poring through a mountain of sourcebooks to make your character.

One can be done effectively by your little brother who's playing D&D for the first time...the other is the sole province of asstarded basement cases and creates an exclusionary culture where you must be "this ant-soial and OCD to play".

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;574897

3e was and remains the most popular edition of D&D so popular that when it was discontinued Pazio was able to repackage it with their own shitty houserules and it still sold like fucking hotcakes.
Many people on this site play 3e without having any minmaxing problems.


Great. That means that the majority of gamers are mouth-breathing munchkin douchebags. Good for you...you successfully turned D&D into fucking Pokemon.

Like I said earlier...you and your shitty friends took what WAS a social hobbie and turned it into an anti-social one.

Congratulations.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 22, 2012, 02:20:02 PM
Quote from: Fiasco;574979

We should ask why does 3E appeal to DMs because clearly deck building or charop bullshit is unlikely to be the reason...


Because they are soulless bureaucrats who would be filling out tax forms for fun if they didn't have assigning skills ranks and feats to shopkeepers as an outlet.

The type of people who run 3E are the same ones who never grew out of being the hall monitor in grammar school.

Also, everything you mentioned as being a draw for 3E can be found in Castles & Crusades, save for character customization which is best accomplished in how you play your character, rather than resorting to munchkin fappery.

Stop sticking up for these ass pimples.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 22, 2012, 02:37:13 PM
One of the things that I really liked about 3rd edition (and 3.5 by extension) was the number of splat books aimed at Players compared to the number aimed at DMs.  The fact is, the DM has a reason to be thinking about the world and the game between sessions.  Players often don't (unless the DM is providing gazateer style write-ups or something).  

While 'poring over endless splat books' might seem like a waste of time for some people, I like that players were engaged in the game away from the table.  In some sense the splat books were unnecessary - I can help a player build a spell/feat/prestige class they want if they can describe what they want to achieve - but for a lot of players, and a lot of DMs, it's easier to consider how others approach the same issue.  

When a player comes to you and says 'I really like the flavor of the Storm Lord.  I'd really like to make a character kind of like Raiden from Mortal Kombat', I can roll with that.  And it can inspire adventures...  How does one become a Storm Lord?  What kinds of adventures would support that 'cool thing'?  

Even if not everything is allowed, letting players look and tell the DM what they think would be cool seems like a good thing to me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on August 22, 2012, 02:49:35 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;575354
One of the things that I really liked about 3rd edition (and 3.5 by extension) was the number of splat books aimed at Players compared to the number aimed at DMs.  The fact is, the DM has a reason to be thinking about the world and the game between sessions.  Players often don't (unless the DM is providing gazateer style write-ups or something).  
 me.


This is all just preference, but for me that was my big problem with 3E (or at least one of my major issues). I like having the published material written more with the GM in mind. I still enjoyed stuff like the brown complete books for 2E, but with 3E it felt like it was all pretty much player focused. It made some good business sense. But there wasn't very much to inspire me as a Gm (and while I am a creative person, I do need inspiration). The 3E splat books just didn't inspire me in any meaningful way. Even books that seemed intended for the Gm, like the city adventue guide (dont recall the name) were thin on substance (at least in my opinion).

Initially I really didn't mind so much, but the splat cycle got old fast (particularly when they were cramming in must have feats, spells and prestige classes in GM books just to get players to buy them). It all started looking really rushed to me and not well thought out.

As always, i have to mention to absolutely god-awful, 3E version of castle ravenloft. That they took arguably one of the best modules and turned it into video-gamey gruel was what really started me on the path of rethinking the value WOTC was bringing to the brand. I am probably being a bit harsh here, but damn did they lose my interest with that abomination of a module.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 22, 2012, 02:52:11 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;575354
One of the things that I really liked about 3rd edition (and 3.5 by extension) was the number of splat books aimed at Players compared to the number aimed at DMs.  The fact is, the DM has a reason to be thinking about the world and the game between sessions.  Players often don't (unless the DM is providing gazateer style write-ups or something).  

While 'poring over endless splat books' might seem like a waste of time for some people, I like that players were engaged in the game away from the table.  In some sense the splat books were unnecessary - I can help a player build a spell/feat/prestige class they want if they can describe what they want to achieve - but for a lot of players, and a lot of DMs, it's easier to consider how others approach the same issue.  

When a player comes to you and says 'I really like the flavor of the Storm Lord.  I'd really like to make a character kind of like Raiden from Mortal Kombat', I can roll with that.  And it can inspire adventures...  How does one become a Storm Lord?  What kinds of adventures would support that 'cool thing'?  

Even if not everything is allowed, letting players look and tell the DM what they think would be cool seems like a good thing to me.


I want players to say "I want to be StormLord!" I will help the player make it happen. What I don't like to deal with, is some poorly designed, overpowered splatbook UBERSTORMLORDPWNJOO class. I can design a well balanced 'Stormlord' in 30 minutes that does what the player wants, within the reasonable parameters of the campaign. But a player does not have some special right to use whatever broken crap they find in a splatbook.

I am the kind of dm that if you say you want a prestige class (that happens to suck) I will go out of my way to beef it up so it performs well.

But I, as the DM, get to chose what abilities Stormlord gets, not a splatbook.

That being said, I have yet to meet a dm that is more willing than myself to allow outside the box characters.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 22, 2012, 02:57:10 PM
As a player, I like player orientated splat books.  But as a DM I hate it because the DM needs to know the rules for all the players whereas the player only needs to know the rules for his or her character.  

With too many splatbooks, it's impossible for the DM to keep up on everything, and before you know it, a player has some power or skill loophole exploit that you weren't aware of.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 03:03:43 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;575337

Waaahhh Stop liking things I dislike.



Seriously dude. I'll respond to your argument when you actually make one.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Wolf, Richard on August 22, 2012, 03:11:31 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn
How so. Charger feats don't exist anymore


Yes they do, including going further up the chain for more benefit (and the Fighter gets more feats than in 3.x).

Quote from: Lord Mistborn
...and the CMB/CMD system seems desinged to make tripping terribad, and for the privilage of still not being able to trip somthing in Pathfinder you need two feats rather than one.


The Trip Monster is an absurd, gamist exploitation of the rules.  I'd personally ban it at my table if anyone tried it.  It only exists as a response to Fighter's sucking in 3.x.  Since they don't suck nearly as bad the option to chain trip Titans (somehow) was indeed nerfed.  You can however still reliably sweep small to large humanoid opponents, which ought to have been the limits of the ability in the first place.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn

Also
They. Nerfed. Power Attack. What. The. Hell.


A level 1 Fighter takes a -1 penalty to attack and gets +2 damage (+3 with a 2h weapon).  That's immediately better than Power Attack.

At level 4 it improves to a -2 to hit and a +4 (or +6 with 2h) damage.  Basic Power Attack in Pathfinder is equivalent to the Supreme Power Attack Frenzied Berserker PrC ability in 3.x basically, which is in fact a great buff.  I don't know where you are getting this nerf from.  Sounds like you are talking out of your ass.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn
A lot of the other CO favorites were nerfed, but nerffing some spells doesn't control caster power, because they can cast other spells.


This is a completely absurd argument.  By the same logic you could make the only spells in the game Detect Magic and Darkvision and casters wouldn't have their power "controlled" because they can still cast those spells.

Nerfing or removing overpowered spells in fact does control caster power.  Some caster problems are baked into the system's other mechanics and won't be controlled due to sacred cows (ability damage, Save or Die/Suck, et cetera), but are still in much better shape than in 3.5.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn

I was just browsing the pfsrd and found Icy Prison. This thing would have been the holy grail in 3e a staple that every COer would take and it would have single-handedly made Evocation a school worth taking.


Maybe you should read more carefully, because it is an awful spell.  First of all it's level 5, and it only effects a single target.  On top of that it allows Reflex partial and Fortitude negates, and then a Strength check to escape.  At the lowest level you can cast it, it does 9 damage a round to a single target, and it is negated by the worst save to attack in the game.

It's good versus other casters that have poor Ref and Fort saves and low HP and Str, which is a rare enemy compared to bloated HP, jacked Con, jacked Str monsters that this spell would suck against.

Quote
People still walk around with buffs all day in Pathfinder just not all of the buffs like some builds in 3e.


First, no they don't, and secondly every single spellcaster isn't "Some Builds".

Quote
Extend spell is still a feat and 1hr level is still a duration


Extend spell allows a level 20 casters buff spells to last a whopping 40 minutes.  The only personal buff IIRC that retained a long duration is Mage Armor.  

The average +1 HP per level that Wizards get in PF doesn't even come close to comparing to the 3.x's Wizard's ability to completely negate any of their weaknesses with long-duration low level spells.  Spellcasters in PF are weaker, not more powerful, and if you can't see that then you don't have the 3.x "System Mastery" you are claiming you do and just parrotting a bunch of shit that you've read on the Internet.

In addition to everything I've already listed the Magic Item Creation/XP gain loophole was closed in PF as well, making the cart load of Wands and Scrolls that Wizards were capable of creating essentially for free in 3.x no longer an option.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn
+2d6 weapon damage that's cute realy, I'm sure the monsters ported right over from 3.5 are shakeing. Still doesn't stack up to real melee in 3e who have pounce, or are warblades who say fuck that shit and just standard action for double damge.


Yes, because we absolutely must compare a PF Fighter using a Short Sword at level 6 to a level 11+ Barbarian/Magic-User gish or a Warblade, right?

A PF Fighter at level 16 will be doing 4d10 + 22 damage on a standard action with a greatsword using Power Attack before adding in Strength or magic bonuses, for the investment of 6 of his 17 Feats at that level.  He doesn't need a list of Wuxia Maneuvers, he doesn't need any spellcasting, he doesn't need to be some Totemist mystical Barbarian, or level dip into a class to activate his Lion wand to buff himself to get Pounce.

The situation is much improved in PF over 3.5, regardless of how much you want to stretch the definition of "Fighter" to include shapeshifted Druids, or Barbarians with Barbarian-specific PrCs.  You are just flatly wrong about Pathfinder buffing casters and nerfing Fighters (as broadly as you want to define that), and you might as well digress.

Quote from: Marleycat;575084
Wow, a book for what could be said in a sentence or three.  Shades of Ben and Spike.  The issue is simple.  No full regeneration after a full rest. Seriously.  Get mean, get a Viking Hat, grow a set..do something.  It really is a non-issue. I did say I'm a bitch correct?


Maybe you should try being a literate bitch next time, rather than offering me suggestions to "fix" something I said I liked.  

What's more is that your suggestion breaks 4e anyway, since the encounters are balanced around having all of your HP every fight and any fight that has the party starting at 1/2 HP like a typical pre-4e one would be ludicrously fatal to the point of unplayable in 4e.

Quote from: The Butcher
Basically, the Denners are argüing that choosing a longsword over a dagger in AD&D 1e is CharOp, while the regulars are equating CharOp with Pun-Pun level antics.


This really strikes me as an example of moats and beams.  A lot of what's been said on 3.x here is shit that mostly happens on the Internet almost exclusively and is pulled directly from 4chan and SA 4vengers fever dreams instead of reality (a clique that according to MacAnus doesn't even exist, that he is oddly invested in protecting from criticism).  

Most 3.x players aren't good at CharOp, and are actively opposed to not creating their characters themselves (as opposed to lifting a 'build' off the Internet).  They still make do.  Most people come up with a character concept first and then go to mechanics to see what's possible, if that is even necessary to invest thought into.  This describes virtually everyone who plays D&D in any edition.

The OSR crowd also downplay's the metagaming in their own ranks.  Maybe at your own games it is deeply 'immersive', but I think even a casual examining of 'the community' shows that Old Geezer's play reports are far more typical, and I don't get a sense that much roleplaying occurs in these games at all.

4e is a tactical mini-wargame, and how many, many people play 1e is as a tactical dungeon crawl-game, and roleplaying not need be involved at all, where the characters are like chess pieces with their own unique abilities to traverse the  environment.  I've been at tables which felt more like a boardgame.

A lot of the stereotypical D&Disms from early editions, like "poling" your way through a dungeon, and exploiting Line of Effect measurements to 'dodge' spells is blatant Rules Lawyering, metagaming BS, and is also very common.  The very idea that 'Rules Lawyering' is exacerbated by 3e strikes me as completely absurd, and contrary to actual experience with the game.

As far as Dagger over Longsword, let's be real.  I hung out with some English Civil War re-enactors and the guy carrying the arm load of weapons during clean up always had the "Hey look, I'm a D&D character!" joke ready which is entirely on point and no D&Der ever missed the joke.  Fact of the matter is lots and lots of players toted around a weapon for every occasion, cross referencing their charts, and picked them out of their bag like they were golf clubs, and even more absurd kept them strapped to their body in combat without a hint of how absurd that is.

I honestly prefer 'metagme' to stay in the realm of character creation than causally accept it at the table, during play.  Which to be fair many of you might not do this, but I suspect that a lot of you are so inured to how absurd a lot of "D&D physics" appear to people that haven't been playing the game for decades and just casually accepting them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 22, 2012, 03:12:02 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575380
Seriously dude. I'll respond to your argument when you actually make one.


He does make arguments, albeit abrasive ones. You trying to dodge by pretending bullshit like this one here "you're not saying anything so I won't answer la-la-la-LA-LA" isn't helping your case one single bit. It makes you look like a cunt too. I hope you realize that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 03:16:37 PM
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575386
The OSR crowd also downplay's the metagaming in their own ranks.  Maybe at your own games it is deeply 'immersive', but I think even a casual examining of 'the community' shows that Old Geezer's play reports are far more typical, and I don't get a sense that much roleplaying occurs in these games at all.

4e is a tactical mini-wargame, and how many, many people play 1e is as a tactical dungeon crawl-game, and roleplaying not need be involved at all, where the characters are like chess pieces with their own unique abilities to traverse the  environment.  I've been at tables which felt more like a boardgame.

A lot of the stereotypical D&Disms from early editions, like "poling" your way through a dungeon, and exploiting Line of Effect measurements to 'dodge' spells is blatant Rules Lawyering, metagaming BS, and is also very common.  The very idea that 'Rules Lawyering' is exacerbated by 3e strikes me as completely absurd, and contrary to actual experience with the game.


This is my experience as well.

The role-playing vs. roll-playing debates have existed since the dawn of the hobby, and they were as heated then as now. Only the unimportant details have changed.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 22, 2012, 03:18:53 PM
You know what draws bigger assholes than 3e?


Internet forum threads about 3e.



In the words of Dennis Leary, "I'm an asshole."
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jhkim on August 22, 2012, 03:19:16 PM
I think I'm also going to make another thread... about liking math. I haven't read most of this thread, so I don't feel like jumping in here.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 22, 2012, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575380
Seriously dude. I'll respond to your argument when you actually make one.
Declan is not going to try to make an actual argument. You'd be wasting your time waiting for one. Just imagine every time you see his name he's saying "There are people who like what I don't like? They are stupid for doing that!". With just that you'll get the ist of everything he will ever say.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 22, 2012, 03:33:44 PM
Quote from: MGuy;575403
Declan is not going to try to make an actual argument.
And now the other cunt is trying to back up is butt buddy in pretending it's all just noise LALALALALA. Right. That's great.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 03:40:49 PM
Quote from: Benoist;575408
And now the other cunt is trying to back up is butt buddy in pretending it's all just noise LALALALALA. Right. That's great.


Are you claiming that Declan is making completely acceptable posts here instead of just gushing bile?

I want to know, because if so this is the first daylight I've seen between you and Sacrosanct.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 22, 2012, 03:44:44 PM
Quote from: gleichman;575415
Are you claiming that Declan is making completely acceptable posts here instead of just gushing bile?
I'm making neither one of those claims, actually. He is not posting completely acceptable posts, since his style is obviously insulting and abrasive (which I've pointed out just above, if you've been following), but neither is he *just* gushing bile.

I know you've got a hard on for me and are going about your little private crusade, but please, actually read the posts before you go on building your imaginary arguments, okay?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 22, 2012, 03:51:40 PM
Quote from: gleichman;575415


I want to know, because if so this is the first daylight I've seen between you and Sacrosanct.



Seriously dude, this is the 3rd time I've posted this.  Why are you and Lord Moron continuing to say I'm all over his cock?  Especially after the 2nd time I reminded you.  If this is what you consider cock-sucking, then no wonder why you are always finding people giving you shit.  It's like you think that unless I specifically call someone a cunt, then I'm kissing up to them.  I'd hate to see how you interact with people in real life with that philosophy.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;571751
My preferred game is AD&D.  I think everyone knows that.  That being said, I gotta say, Declan and 1989 especially, and you Benoist to a slightly less extent, seem to have this irrational hatred of any non AD&D 1e version.  I dare say, it rivals the 3tards and 4vengers in comparison.  I get pissed at some of the fanbois of those editions, but I don't loathe any version itself.

Just a game dudes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: Benoist;575420
I'm making neither one of those claims, actually. He is not posting completely acceptable posts, since his style is obviously insulting and abrasive (which I've pointed out just above, if you've been following)...


And yet, you attack MGuy directly for saying just that.

Quote from: Benoist;575420

, but neither is he *just* gushing bile.


I think that point could be debated as there comes a time when the bile overwhelms anything else the person is saying.

You are the other hand by seem to feel that any amount of bile is worthwhile, and would spend your time attacking MGuy after he's said he's fed up with it.


Quote from: Benoist;575420

I know you've got a hard on for me and are going about your little private crusade, but please, actually read the posts before you go on building your imaginary arguments, okay?


I think you're one of the most self-centered and egotistical people I've ever encountered online. Futher that your insights into game are horribly limited and unappealing.

All that is beside the point.

The real issue is that you, like Declan are insulting and abrasive to anything that gets in your way. To the point when the chance to take a cheap shot at MGuy is so important, you're willing to defend *anyone* opposed to him no matter what they've been doing.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 22, 2012, 04:01:54 PM
Quote from: MGuy;575293
Yes, Pf did nerf a bunch of spells but spell casters don't need the truly broken spells and loopholes to stay ahead. I have a core wizard right now in a Thunderdome contest to prove just that. While PF did try t o close some of the most obvious loopholes (That most people don't let fly at their table anyway) they gave the casters more options (ranging from useless to obviously superior). The fighter is still stuck playing the numbers game.


Thunderdome don't prove shit. Pathfinder is a party adventure game, not a man-on-man arena game.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 04:02:25 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575427
Seriously dude, this is the 3rd time I've posted this.  Why are you and Lord Moron continuing to say I'm all over his cock?  


My vision of you as in lock step comes from the map and minis debate, where both of you were tossing venom like you were spitting cobras.

These last couple of days has shown that there is indeed a significant difference between of the two of you- all to your advantage.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 22, 2012, 04:10:06 PM
Quote from: gleichman;575431
I think that point could be debated as there comes a time when the bile overwhelms anything else the person is saying.
At which point they endlessly piss and moan about a "bully squad" and ragequit forever every couple of weeks.

Quote
The real issue is that you, like Declan are  insulting and abrasive to anything that gets in your way. To the point  when the chance to take a cheap shot at MGuy is so important, you're  willing to defend *anyone* opposed to him no matter what they've been  doing.
In a similar manner to blindly supporting the 'August Surprise/Denner' group at all costs.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 22, 2012, 04:13:24 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575297
Spells that are SR:No in Pathfinder Transmute Rock to Mud, Summon Monster I-IX any Wall of X spell worth taking. I'm don't think my Wizard is going to have any problems. The best spells are the ones that target no people and the allow no saving throw or SR.


I'm sure you will be fine. But I played a druid in the aforementioned campaign and you just described about half the spells I used. And they certainly played a role. What they are don't do is deliver damage as the pc fighter types. They do aid the the rest of in doing so, however.

Quote

If spell X, Y, and Z are encounter enders and you nerf X and Y then people will cast Z. Also "no viking hats at the table" apperently needs to be part of the rules of the game, just like "the person who brings out a fumble chart will be force-fed the paper it's prited on."


Do you even understand what I mean by Viking hat on this forum?

Quote

Dependable damage, in Pathfinder. From a Fighter. You are aware that this is the game that nerfed Power Attack. I'll bet Fighters are outdamaged by the Summoner's hand puppet.


Now I'll laugh at you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 22, 2012, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: gleichman;575431
herpy derp derp

Man, I must have pissed on your Cheerios this morning. Want a hug?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 22, 2012, 04:17:11 PM
Quote from: Benoist;575442
Man, I must have pissed on your Cheerios this morning. Want a hug?


You live to piss in the Cheerios of anyone who disagrees with you. It's your first reaction to anything different.

And no I don't want a hug from you.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 04:17:56 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575441

Now I'll laugh at you.


It is on.

Make a Fighter.

I'll make an Eidolon for a Summoner of equilivent level.

It's Thunderdome time.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: StormBringer on August 22, 2012, 04:18:12 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575441
Now I'll laugh at you.
It's received wisdom at TGD, an article of faith.  You need only believe it strongly enough and it will be true.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 22, 2012, 04:19:15 PM
Quote from: gleichman;575445
And no I don't want a hug from you.


Awww you grouchy little bear.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 22, 2012, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575447
It is on.

Make a Fighter.

I'll make an Eidolon for a Summoner of equilivent level.

It's Thunderdome time.


Isn't an Eidolon as powerful as a Fighter?

And you can wear them like a suit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 04:39:20 PM
Quote from: Bill;575460
Isn't an Eidolon as powerful as a Fighter?

And you can wear them like a suit.


The Eidolon is better than a fighter. The Summoner himself will not be part of this equation. The plan is to prove the PF Fighter is weaker than another classes class feature. Want to DM for it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Wolf, Richard on August 22, 2012, 04:39:23 PM
You are getting trolled Benoist.  You are supporting a guy who is having a deliberately anti-social spergout and accusing others of being anti-social spergs, and because he's coming from an angle that you support you don't see it.

Declan's ePersona is basically just lifted from a psychology websites descriptions of anti-social PD, and mimicking an Aspergers inspired panic attack.  I assume it's deliberate trolling and not just a case of cosmic irony.

It's trolling 101.  There is absolutely no way that any unbiased lurker could read this thread and assume that say DeadDMwalking is anti-social in comparison to Declan, and by association, you.

There isn't any reasonable person that would read into 3e's number crunching as broadly representative of OCD that wouldn't also read into Declan's bizarre tirades as extrapolating into other bizarre, fevered outbursts on any variety of topics.  

God forbid he be at your 1e table only to have him start claiming that you and your subhuman kin should be wiped from the Earth root and branch because you don't buy namebrand soda and snacks or you have a Thomas Kinkade painting on your wall (or are wearing a NASCAR hat), because that's all deeply representative of being "anti-social", or whatever else disqualifies someone from their humanity in your forum buddy's crazed mind.

(http://oi50.tinypic.com/4sjm2r.jpg)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 22, 2012, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575463
The Eidolon is better than a fighter. The Summoner himself will not be part of this equation. The plan is to prove the PF Fighter is weaker than another classes class feature. Want to DM for it.


Thats what I thought. I did not study the Eidolon closely, but I told a player I thought the Eidolon looked as good as a fighter, so Summoners are broken....their pet is that good alone?  The player argued.

I guess the same genius designed Summoners that gave Clerics that Healing Aura. Poor Clerics...so weak they needed a boost.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 22, 2012, 04:54:33 PM
Quote from: Bill;575468
Thats what I thought. I did not study the Eidolon closely, but I told a player I thought the Eidolon looked as good as a fighter, so Summoners are broken....their pet is that good alone?  The player argued.

I guess the same genius designed Summoners that gave Clerics that Healing Aura. Poor Clerics...so weak they needed a boost.


My understanding of the Summoner is that the Eidolon is essentially a part of him.  I'm not clear on how you can separate the two.

Though I guess for the 'Thunderdome' you're still making the argument that that one portion of the Summoner character is better than the entire Fighter class?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 22, 2012, 04:54:43 PM
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575464
You are getting trolled Benoist.  You are supporting a guy who is having a deliberately anti-social spergout and accusing others of being anti-social spergs, and because he's coming from an angle that you support you don't see it.
To be clear, and if you really read my posts in this thread, I don't support the extreme notion that "ONLY assholes would play 3rd ed" and the like. But I do agree with the notion that there is something about the game that specifically appeals to some people who already are assholes in a variety of ways, and for a variety of reasons ranging from "I've got to show I got a big dick at the game table" to "my 2e DM touched me in the wrong places and I'm going to take it to you, 3rd ed DM, and cut your balls in the process so you can't do the same thing to me now." And I do believe that comes down to the core of the game's design, and not just a few fringe guys being an extreme representation of that bunch of assholes, as examplified on this thread.

I don't think Declan is trolling as much as he's saying what he thinks in totally extremely, in your face, "fuck you" style. Now I know some of you have definitely made the determination that he's a troll. Well so be it. I don't think he is, or not in the way you think he is, in any case. Just like I don't think that MGuy sets out to being a troll by the way, though his head is so far up his ass as being virtually unable to have any conversation about 3rd ed in good faith.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 04:59:30 PM
Quote from: Bill;575468
Thats what I thought. I did not study the Eidolon closely, but I told a player I thought the Eidolon looked as good as a fighter, so Summoners are broken....their pet is that good alone?  The player argued.

I guess the same genius designed Summoners that gave Clerics that Healing Aura. Poor Clerics...so weak they needed a boost.


The Druids animal companion was better than or almost as good as a core 3e fighter and the Eidolon looks better. I've never played pathfinder, so I have no idea what I'm doing.

Congrats for noticing how Pazio can't into game balance. I don't really mind Pathfinder since I have a small fortune of 3.5 splats I've felt no need to switch but the people on the Pazio forums who claim PF is anything but some houserule that don't fix 3e at all are the scum of the earth.
Quote from: mcbobbo;575470
Though I guess for the 'Thunderdome' you're still making the argument that that one portion of the Summoner character is better than the entire Fighter class?

you betcha.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Butcher on August 22, 2012, 05:42:04 PM
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575464
Declan's ePersona is basically just lifted from a psychology websites descriptions of anti-social PD


That's not even remotely how DSM-IV/ICD-10 antisocial PD works.

Then again, autism and Asperger's don't really work how people on the Internet seem to think they work, either. So, by all means, carry on. ;)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 22, 2012, 05:52:22 PM
Oh sure whip out your M.D. why dontcha?  :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 22, 2012, 05:52:44 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575447
It is on.

Make a Fighter.

I'll make an Eidolon for a Summoner of equilivent level.

It's Thunderdome time.

Let's see: no. You already know I think Thunderdome is BS.

If you were under the impression I was laughing at you about the Eidolon comment let me correct you: I was laughing about you over the power attack comment. But if you are right, that probably means the Eidolon is broken. Fair enough (this may be a reason two fellow GMs ban it from their games, but I didn't ask.)

GETTING BACK to the point at hand, the fighter in our group regularly did 50 points in an attack and 100 points in a round. My druid or the wizard would expend at least 1 or 2 slots of level 6+ to do that. We can't do that all day.

In a pinch I can do it for a few rounds. But my resources are much better spent making sure the fighter reaches his target.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jhkim on August 22, 2012, 06:02:27 PM
Quote from: Benoist;575471
To be clear, and if you really read my posts in this thread, I don't support the extreme notion that "ONLY assholes would play 3rd ed" and the like. But I do agree with the notion that there is something about the game that specifically appeals to some people who already are assholes in a variety of ways, and for a variety of reasons ranging from "I've got to show I got a big dick at the game table" to "my 2e DM touched me in the wrong places and I'm going to take it to you, 3rd ed DM, and cut your balls in the process so you can't do the same thing to me now." And I do believe that comes down to the core of the game's design, and not just a few fringe guys being an extreme representation of that bunch of assholes, as examplified on this thread.

Personally, I don't much care whether assholes like or dislike a game.  I don't play with them, so why should I care if they like the same game I do? If there was something at the core of poker that specifically appealed to assholes, it wouldn't make it any more or less fun for me to play with my friends.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 06:23:21 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575485

GETTING BACK to the point at hand, the fighter in our group regularly did 50 points in an attack and 100 points in a round. My druid or the wizard would expend at least 1 or 2 slots of level 6+ to do that. We can't do that all day.


>>casting damage spells
>>in a 3e clone

LaughingTreantmonk.jpg

Quote from: Pathfinder
Power Attack (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
 
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
 
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.

When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.

You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

Quote from: d20 Srd
Power Attack [General]

Prerequisite
 
Str 13.

Benefit
 
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
 
Special
 
If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)
 
A fighter may select Power Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.

I know that math is hard for Pathfailures but one of those gives you more damage. Hinit it's not the one you think it is.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 22, 2012, 06:33:35 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575500
>>casting damage spells
>>in a 3e clone

LaughingTreantmonk.jpg



I know that math is hard for Pathfailures


What are you, 12?

Quote

 but one of those gives you more damage. Hinit it's not the one you think it is.


So it's not the 3.5 one? Because that's the one I think it is. But again, you've missed the point.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575501
What are you, 12?



So it's not the 3.5 one? Because that's the one I think it is. But again, you've missed the point.


Pathfinder Power attack may do more damage per point but it's capped at absurdly low values and quickly falls behind, a 3e fighter at 10th level is seriously powerattacking for 5 because he's off the RNG anyway, and that's factoring out shit like Leap Attack and Shock Trooper. Just maybe the Pathfinder can keep up in the damage race but that's all he can do no Tripping no Grappleing no crazy AoO shenanigans this is Pathfinder made by people who can't into game balance.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 22, 2012, 06:59:40 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575508
Pathfinder Power attack may do more damage per point but it's capped at absurdly low values and quickly falls behind, a 3e fighter at 10th level is seriously powerattacking for 5 because he's off the RNG anyway, and that's factoring out shit like Leap Attack and Shock Trooper. Just maybe the Pathfinder can keep up in the damage race but that's all he can do no Tripping no Grappleing no crazy AoO shenanigans this is Pathfinder made by people who can't into game balance.


I can see you are very determined to beat that strawman, so don't let me stand in your way.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575515
I can see you are very determined to beat that strawman, so don't let me stand in your way.


Your the one making the claim that Pathfinder is somehow balanced.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Caesar Slaad on August 22, 2012, 07:07:14 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575518
Your the one making the claim that Pathfinder is somehow balanced.

Something that clearly has you very disturbed.

Let me clue you in a second time: I also wasn't making a claim that nerfing power attack was good or bad.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 07:10:13 PM
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;575521
Something that clearly has you very disturbed.


Because you're being wrong on the internet.

Stop being wrong.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 22, 2012, 07:12:34 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575522
Because you're being wrong on the internet.

Stop being wrong.


Welcome TO the internet.  I'll direct you to the republican pundits on one side and the democratic pundits on the other.  One side has to be wrong, right?  So commence to making sure they know it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 22, 2012, 07:19:30 PM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;575524
One side has to be wrong, right?  So commence to making sure they know it.


Unless they're BOTH wrong.  Of course, trying to claim that there is more than two sides to a debate is a sure way to get yourself dog-piled by everyone.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jhkim on August 22, 2012, 07:28:20 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575508
Pathfinder Power attack may do more damage per point but it's capped at absurdly low values and quickly falls behind, a 3e fighter at 10th level is seriously powerattacking for 5 because he's off the RNG anyway, and that's factoring out shit like Leap Attack and Shock Trooper. Just maybe the Pathfinder can keep up in the damage race but that's all he can do no Tripping no Grappleing no crazy AoO shenanigans this is Pathfinder made by people who can't into game balance.

This is a bit of an aside, but in my limited experience, a lot of players were confused about the effect of Power Attack.  

3.X Power Attack is best used on low-damage, high-hit-chance attacks.  However, perhaps because of the description, many players saw it as something to use on their two-handed sword swing - where it almost always decreased their average damage. i.e. Suppose I need an 8+ to hit, and I do average 12 damage.  I will *decrease* my average damage by 3.X Power Attack.  I have an old 3.0-era page on this at:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/damage.html

Pathfinder Power Attack is much more often useful in increasing average damage.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 22, 2012, 07:30:38 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;575527
Unless they're BOTH wrong.  Of course, trying to claim that there is more than two sides to a debate is a sure way to get yourself dog-piled by everyone.


If they're BOTH wrong on the internet, then he for SURE needs to go straighten them out.

I was speaking sideways about the futility of trying to correct  people being incorrect on the internet.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim;575530
This is a bit of an aside, but in my limited experience, a lot of players were confused about the effect of Power Attack.  

3.X Power Attack is best used on low-damage, high-hit-chance attacks.  However, perhaps because of the description, many players saw it as something to use on their two-handed sword swing - where it almost always decreased their average damage. i.e. Suppose I need an 8+ to hit, and I do average 12 damage.  I will *decrease* my average damage by 3.X Power Attack.  I have an old 3.0-era page on this at:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/damage.html

Pathfinder Power Attack is much more often useful in increasing average damage.


This is also wrong becaue in 3.5 the RNG snaps like a twing after level 6. so you have no reason not to dump 5 or more bab points into Power Attack.


On the PF Fighter in genral. Like so many "Fixed" Fighters that everyone seems to want to make the PF fighter is vastly weaker than the Warblade. Why do I want Pazios buffed fighter class when 3.5 already gives me a better one.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Wolf, Richard on August 22, 2012, 07:48:33 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575500

I know that math is hard for Pathfailures but one of those gives you more damage. Hinit it's not the one you think it is.


Yes, it is, especially after you include the native damage bonus the Fighter gets from Weapon Training into the formula, and if you want it the improved power attack from the 2h Fighter archetype which gives you a total of +24 damage for a -6 penalty, a +4-6 all the time, and an average extra ~15 from Greater Vital Strike on standard attacks.

The only thing that PF Power Attack "breaks" is a single Shock Trooper build that a bunch of whiny fucks on the Internet think is the only way to play a Fighter because PF's Feat doesn't let you use it with touch attacks (which doesn't even matter because technically the Shock Trooper doesn't exist in PF, and would need to be converted anyway).

There isn't any reason Leap Attack can't be in PF, although 3.5 Fighters riding their greatswords like pogo sticks the whole fight is just as silly as the Trip Monster, but some version of the x2 Power Attack bonus abilities are at least worth thinking about converting (and I assume will show up from Paizo or an approved publisher one day anyway).  The only reasonable gripe about the Feat is that you can't dial it down, but again that's a big whoop, because the max penalty is only -6 at level fricking 20 anyway.

If you are using converted 3.5 material in PF, then literally the only thing that doesn't work is the Shock Trooper, which is nothing considering I can take my huge negative -11 to hit with my 2h PF Fighter that deals 6d10+160ish damage for every greatsword hit and stuns/staggers/exhausts them (pick any 2), and then swing at everything standing next to what I just hit on top of it all.  Of course I can inflict the stun with a mere -5 penalty to hit by dropping the bonus damage by 72, and then dial the damage back up after they've dropped what they are holding, have only flat-footed AC, and then step out of melee without risking AoO, and know that for the rest of the combat they won't be able to move and then attack in the same round.

I'll take my PF Fighter over all of the act like a retard 3.5 builds that require you to ride your sword like a pogostick while shouting "I'm jumping, I'm jumping!" every single round, and all of the other stupid shit that got cooked up.  I'll take just swinging a sword really, really well, thanks.

You are already on the record as wanting Naruto: The RPG anyway though, so you probably won't be satisfied unless you can spin like a top while knocking down everything that gets close to you with your 'non-magical' extendo-staff.  Again, pass.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 08:13:27 PM
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575542
Yes, it is, especially after you include the native damage bonus the Fighter gets from Weapon Training into the formula, and if you want it the improved power attack from the 2h Fighter archetype which gives you a total of +24 damage for a -6 penalty, a +4-6 all the time, and an average extra ~15 from Greater Vital Strike on standard attacks.

The only thing that PF Power Attack "breaks" is a single Shock Trooper build that a bunch of whiny fucks on the Internet think is the only way to play a Fighter because PF's Feat doesn't let you use it with touch attacks (which doesn't even matter because technically the Shock Trooper doesn't exist in PF, and would need to be converted anyway).

There isn't any reason Leap Attack can't be in PF, although 3.5 Fighters riding their greatswords like pogo sticks the whole fight is just as silly as the Trip Monster, but some version of the x2 Power Attack bonus abilities are at least worth thinking about converting (and I assume will show up from Paizo or an approved publisher one day anyway).  The only reasonable gripe about the Feat is that you can't dial it down, but again that's a big whoop, because the max penalty is only -6 at level fricking 20 anyway.

If you are using converted 3.5 material in PF, then literally the only thing that doesn't work is the Shock Trooper, which is nothing considering I can take my huge negative -11 to hit with my 2h PF Fighter that deals 6d10+160ish damage for every greatsword hit and stuns/staggers/exhausts them (pick any 2), and then swing at everything standing next to what I just hit on top of it all.  Of course I can inflict the stun with a mere -5 penalty to hit by dropping the bonus damage by 72, and then dial the damage back up after they've dropped what they are holding, have only flat-footed AC, and then step out of melee without risking AoO, and know that for the rest of the combat they won't be able to move and then attack in the same round.

I'll take my PF Fighter over all of the act like a retard 3.5 builds that require you to ride your sword like a pogostick while shouting "I'm jumping, I'm jumping!" every single round, and all of the other stupid shit that got cooked up.  I'll take just swinging a sword really, really well, thanks.

You are already on the record as wanting Naruto: The RPG anyway though, so you probably won't be satisfied unless you can spin like a top while knocking down everything that gets close to you with your 'non-magical' extendo-staff.  Again, pass.


Like I've said before I don't have any need for Pathfinder because I have a shitload of 3.5 books. It seems that since Pathfinder launched Pazio has stopped crapping on fighters a given the real options again. I still have remain unconvinced that anything Pazio has Printed for Fighters compares to a Warblade much less the crazytrain that is casters in 3e and derivatives.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jhkim on August 22, 2012, 08:29:35 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575540
This is also wrong becaue in 3.5 the RNG snaps like a twing after level 6. so you have no reason not to dump 5 or more bab points into Power Attack.

I don't actually know what "RNG snaps like a twing" means.  Is RNG Random Number Generator?  Are you saying that hit chances are way over 100% after level 6?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 22, 2012, 08:33:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim;575565
I don't actually know what "RNG snaps like a twing" means.  Is RNG Random Number Generator?  Are you saying that hit chances are way over 100% after level 6?


This is frequently the case in most editions of D&D.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Wolf, Richard on August 22, 2012, 09:36:28 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575569
This is frequently the case in most editions of D&D.


No it's not, and the math has already been done.  It's only an option to dump all of your BAB into Power Attacking with the Shock Trooper because they can use touch attacks to bypass the bulk of monster AC.

If you aren't using the Shock Trooper then base monster AC (even assuming they won't have buffs, and extra equipment which is a poor assumption in a lot of fights at high level) is reliably too high to dump enough BAB to get the same +damage from PF Power Attack.

The 3.5 Power Attack is sometimes better, but marginally so, at high levels, with a much narrower number of potential characters versus a narrow range of potential enemies that have low defenses and high HP like some undead, oozes, et cetera.

Most high level monsters have enough AC that you certainly aren't hitting 100% of the time, even while taking the mere -6 attack penalty with PF Power Attack.  A monster with 38 AC, and a level 20 Fighter with a +20 to their base attack will hit over 100% of the time, but will only hit 90% of the time while Power Attacking (monters ACs can easily go over 38 with self-buffs and loot).  

So for every point below -6 you want to take with the 3.5 PA, you are dropping your hit chance by 5% under identical circumstances.  To hit my base Fighter's +18 2h damage, you are sacrificing 15% damage by missing 15% more often.

The exception is the Shock Trooper which bypasses armor (while charging back and forth continuously like a bull goaded on by a matador), and the Leap Attacking Frenzied Berserker that gets +8 damage for every -1 penalty to hit, while bouncing up and down on enemies heads riding their sword like a pogo stick while literally foaming at the mouth for the entirety of their combat career, while failing to turn their Frenzy off and killing other players every couple of sessions (and is a Barbarian and not a Fighter anyway).

This is the much advertised "nerf" of the PF Power Attack, which in exchange makes many other builds nearly as good, and infinitely less silly for not being unintentional (including one that grants Whirlwind Blitz at level 20, which is Pounce, but doesn't require a charge).  

I'm not saying you need to go out and buy PF if you are fine with 3.5 or that PF fixes every issue one may have with 3.5 if they have them (and if all you wanted was to import PF stuff into 3.5 their SRD is searchable and contains pretty much anything you would want for free anyway).  I'm just saying you are mistaken about PF buffing casters and nerfing everything else.

Wizards are still the leader of the pack in terms of what they can do, like in 3.5, but the gap is considerably narrowed.  It's just not reasonable to say that there is actually more disparity between casters and non-casters in PF than there was in 3.5, even if a lot of the flaws transferred from one version of the game to the other.  There is certainly some.  Might even be fair to say a lot, which is more subjective obviously, but the kinds of gamebreaking thing that virtually every spellcaster figured out on their own (persisted spells, "free XP" by creating the exact right amount of magic items every level, removing the classes inherent fragility with polymorph) are all gone.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 23, 2012, 01:39:29 AM
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575464
You are getting trolled Benoist.  You are supporting a guy who is having a deliberately anti-social spergout and accusing others of being anti-social spergs, and because he's coming from an angle that you support you don't see it.

Declan's ePersona is basically just lifted from a psychology websites descriptions of anti-social PD, and mimicking an Aspergers inspired panic attack.  I assume it's deliberate trolling and not just a case of cosmic irony.

It's trolling 101.  There is absolutely no way that any unbiased lurker could read this thread and assume that say DeadDMwalking is anti-social in comparison to Declan, and by association, you.

There isn't any reasonable person that would read into 3e's number crunching as broadly representative of OCD that wouldn't also read into Declan's bizarre tirades as extrapolating into other bizarre, fevered outbursts on any variety of topics.  

God forbid he be at your 1e table only to have him start claiming that you and your subhuman kin should be wiped from the Earth root and branch because you don't buy namebrand soda and snacks or you have a Thomas Kinkade painting on your wall (or are wearing a NASCAR hat), because that's all deeply representative of being "anti-social", or whatever else disqualifies someone from their humanity in your forum buddy's crazed mind.

(http://oi50.tinypic.com/4sjm2r.jpg)
I don't know where you came from but where have you been hiding all this time? Why haven't more of you been speaking up on this board?!

Also Mistborn you should chill. Yes Pathfinder didn't give much to the fighter but why are you pushing the point? Fighters in 3rd being behind is essentially accepted by anyone who realizes numbers do not equal a good ability at mid to high levels.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kiero on August 23, 2012, 04:35:07 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575569
This is frequently the case in most editions of D&D.


Not the case in 4th edition.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 23, 2012, 05:05:08 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575569
This is frequently the case in most editions of D&D.


Care to offer any possible evidence or examples of this at all?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Traveller on August 23, 2012, 06:19:44 AM
Is it any wonder the fundies thought D&D threatened their religion.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 23, 2012, 06:48:31 AM
Quote from: CRKrueger;575690
Care to offer any possible evidence or examples of this at all?


Proving that for 3e would be a lot math but I also have 2e books so lets do that.

In 2e AC caps at -10 (which is equilivent to 30 in 3e) and ACs that low are genrally limited to dragons. the fighter still gets what is essentially 1/1 bab so he's hiting that 50% of the time at 20 from Thac0 numbers alone, and fighters are expected to have suff like Belts of lol huge stregnth and Swords of +5 Awesome Sauce. If I have to make a wager I'd bet 2e PCs start autohitting stuff around level 10 it could be sooner or later though since the amount of magic items people have in 2e deprnds on the phase of the moon and what your DM had for breakfast.

Also can I complain about 2e math. It exists in a bizarro world where a bonus lowers your score, but sometimes it's the other way around. Was this system written by moon people.
Quote from: MGuy;575659
Also Mistborn you should chill. Yes Pathfinder didn't give much to the fighter but why are you pushing the point? Fighters in 3rd being behind is essentially accepted by anyone who realizes numbers do not equal a good ability at mid to high levels.

You've seen my avatar right. This is important, someone is wrong on the internet. What am I suposed to do just let him keep on being wrong.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 23, 2012, 10:01:31 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575697

In 2e AC caps at -10 (which is equilivent to 30 in 3e) and ACs that low are genrally limited to dragons. the fighter still gets what is essentially 1/1 bab so he's hiting that 50% of the time at 20 from Thac0 numbers alone, and fighters are expected to have suff like Belts of lol huge stregnth and Swords of +5 Awesome Sauce. If I have to make a wager I'd bet 2e PCs start autohitting stuff around level 10 it could be sooner or later though since the amount of magic items people have in 2e deprnds on the phase of the moon and what your DM had for breakfast.


Um...no.
Quote


Also can I complain about 2e math. It exists in a bizarro world where a bonus lowers your score, but sometimes it's the other way around. Was this system written by moon people.


Sorry, but it's pretty consistent.  All bonuses to hit are added to your die roll.  You subtract that from 20 to find what AC you hit.  That never changes.
Quote


You've seen my avatar right. This is important, someone is wrong on the internet.


Yeah, and it's usually the people who are wrong the most often that end up using stuff like that.  It's the irony of the internet.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jibbajibba on August 23, 2012, 10:15:45 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575722
Um...no.

Sorry, but it's pretty consistent.  All bonuses to hit are added to your die roll.  You subtract that from 20 to find what AC you hit.  That never changes.

Yeah, and it's usually the people who are wrong the most often that end up using stuff like that.  It's the irony of the internet.


To be fair there is an element of trut to this .

If you look at eh sample 15th level 2e Dwarf figther than was suggested as typcial PC int eh figther v wizard discusson then by 15th level at guy has double spec a +4 weapon and a giant strength girdle for a toal to hit bonus of +11 with a THACO of 5 at 15th level this means he autohits AC -7
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 23, 2012, 10:32:02 AM
Quote from: jibbajibba;575725
To be fair there is an element of trut to this .

If you look at eh sample 15th level 2e Dwarf figther than was suggested as typcial PC int eh figther v wizard discusson then by 15th level at guy has double spec a +4 weapon and a giant strength girdle for a toal to hit bonus of +11 with a THACO of 5 at 15th level this means he autohits AC -7

To be fair to your being fair, however, a 15th level character in 2e has been playing for about twice as long as a 20th level in 3.5.  I don't have the 2e numbers handy, but from OSRIC, the 190k xp you need for 20 in 3.5 would get you to just about halfway to level 9 as a fighter, and you'd need 1,750,000 xp to reach level 15.

Yes, I get that the experience awards are different, my point is that a level 15 2e fighter is MUCH rarer than a level 20 3e fighter.  From the perspective of how heroic-level they are, i'd consider a level 15 in 2e to be more like a mid-to-high 20's character in 3.5.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 23, 2012, 10:40:00 AM
Quote from: jibbajibba;575725
To be fair there is an element of trut to this .

If you look at eh sample 15th level 2e Dwarf figther than was suggested as typcial PC int eh figther v wizard discusson then by 15th level at guy has double spec a +4 weapon and a giant strength girdle for a toal to hit bonus of +11 with a THACO of 5 at 15th level this means he autohits AC -7


I was mainly talking about his auto-hitting PCs at level 10.  Not in my experience at all.  And while I do play AD&D 1e, we use the 2e THAC0 system instead of tables.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 23, 2012, 10:42:57 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;575729
To be fair to your being fair, however, a 15th level character in 2e has been playing for about twice as long as a 20th level in 3.5. .


Not to mention, that in AD&D only a small % of time is spent playing characters of 15th level or higher.  Hell, I've been playing AD&D continuous for over 30 years and have only had one character in the teens: level 16.  In AD&D, the vast majority of time is spent between levels 3-10.  In 3e, it seems like level 20 is where most people play at or where you should be playing at, looking at all the discussions around builds.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 23, 2012, 10:45:40 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575722
Sorry, but it's pretty consistent.  All bonuses to hit are added to your die roll.  You subtract that from 20 to find what AC you hit.  That never changes.


It seems very unintuitive for me. Maybe I've been spoiled by how easy d20's core system is. I doubt it would be a problem for people who play 2e regularly though.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 23, 2012, 10:51:38 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575736
It seems very unintuitive for me. Maybe I've been spoiled by how easy d20's core system is. I doubt it would be a problem for people who play 2e regularly though.


I admit it's not as intuitive as adding.  Subtraction never is.  And let me ammend that you subtract from your THAC0.  I was going off a 1st level character in my example.  But the process never changes.

Roll a 13, have a total of +3 to hit = 16.  THAC0 of 15 = you hit AC -1.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 23, 2012, 10:53:37 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575734
In 3e, it seems like level 20 is where most people play at or where you should be playing at, looking at all the discussions around builds.


Level 20 is bonkers in any edition, I always play from 5th-12th level in 3e. Lost of CO people tend to forget that noone starts at 20.

CO guy: look at my sweet build 9th level spells from two sources at 20th level

Me: Wow this character can't do anything from 6th-14th why would anyone want to play it.

CO guy: But, but, double nines, double nines LM.

Me: You don't even get any 4th level spells untill 11th have fun with that.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 23, 2012, 11:08:53 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575742
Level 20 is bonkers in any edition, I always play from 5th-12th level in 3e. Lost of CO people tend to forget that noone starts at 20.

CO guy: look at my sweet build 9th level spells from two sources at 20th level

Me: Wow this character can't do anything from 6th-14th why would anyone want to play it.

CO guy: But, but, double nines, double nines LM.

Me: You don't even get any 4th level spells untill 11th have fun with that.


This is an extension of the 'real game starts at level cap' meme from MMOs. In these scenarios what is taken and used during level-up is discarded and 're-specc'd' for endgame play.

Its where the 4E retraining rules came from.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 11:28:11 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575380
Seriously dude. I'll respond to your argument when you actually make one.


I should just tell you to go back and read my posts, which hithertofore you have been pointedly ignoring in favor of trying to turn this thread into a discussion of 3.x class balance for some bizarre reason.

But for the sake of clarity I will reiterate:

1) Deck-building charop is BAD.

It's bad because it creates a culture around the game that rewards what is written on a players sheet more than the decisions they make during gameplay. Instead of being played at the table with friends, the game is played by oneself, locked in their room with a mountain of splatbooks.

This is harmful because when all of your most significant decisions are made away from the game table it lessens your engagement with the gameworld, which in turn limits your sense of immersion which is the whole POINT of this whole roleplaying exercise.

It's bad because it creates an arms race between players and the DM, which increases his/her workload exponentially just to present a reasonable challenge to the party. Now instead of spending their time drawing cool maps, or coming up with cool adventure hooks, or interesting world lore, the DM is painstakingly selecting feats for their monsters and coming up with ways to challenge the casters.

This is harmful because it turns the game into a contest of pre-fabricated numbers, and reinforces the idea of the DM as an adversary rather than an impartial interpreter of die rolls.

It's bad because it creates an exclusionary culture around the game, wherein people who don't understand rules interactions and synergies, like newer and more casual gamers, are  at a distinct disadvantage compared to people with the time and inclination to pore through sourcebooks building the perfect character.

This is harmful because it sends the message that people somehow deserve to be punished for being new or having other interests.

These are the reasons that people compare 3.X to Magic: the Gathering.

2) Rules-lawyering is BAD.

Knowing the rules is fine (unless you play Paranoia...in which case it's treason), however no ruleset is so exhaustively comprehensive that it covers every possible corner case. At some point the rules will fail, either because they adequately describe the scenario, or because a situation arises for which there are no clear rules.

At this point, the game needs actual human judgment to function adequately, which is why the game has a Dungeon Master. The rules exist solely to inform the DM's rulings, and not as the ultimate authority.

Rules lawyers take the rules as written, regardless of their actual intent, and use them in an attempt to bully the rest of the table into giving them their way, which interrupts the flow of the game and tramples carelessly on the toes of the rest of the group. It's is a petty, self-centered and all around feculent way to act towards one's friends.

What's more, it's an attempt to reduce the DM to a machine that rolls dice for the monsters.

3) Powergaming is BAD.

It's fine to enjoy killing stuff, but if your reason for playing is to use your numbers to inflict numbers on a another stack of numbers so that you can increase your numbers and take on bigger numbers, then why are you even bothering with D&D? Why not just play a videogame?

D&D is not solely about killing things. A campaign that consisted only of room after room after level appropriate room of adversaries would get boring really quick. The game needs things like exploration, puzzles, social encounters, domain management, etc. to keep it interesting and to give context to the kobold slaughtering.

The goal of D&D is to provide a sense of immersion, discovery and camaraderie between players. Powergamers ignore these goals by seeking only: "killkilllbloodilllootlevelkillloot", and becoming disruptive when the game stretches it's muscles beyond this paradigm.

Still following me? Good.

These traits are widely regarded as being among the worst that gamers can have. Therefore, it would not be too much of a stretch to say that people who exhibit these traits in abundance are assholes.

Among all of the various iterations of D&D, 3rd edition is the most supportive and rewarding of these traits.

So I posit then, that if 3E rewards asshole gamer traits more than any other edition of D&D, then the people who prefer to play 3E over other versions do so precisely because the game enables asshole-ish tendencies. Ergo, people who prefer 3E are assholes.

Get it?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 23, 2012, 12:31:01 PM
Quote from: mcbobbo;575470
My understanding of the Summoner is that the Eidolon is essentially a part of him.  I'm not clear on how you can separate the two.

Though I guess for the 'Thunderdome' you're still making the argument that that one portion of the Summoner character is better than the entire Fighter class?


As far as I know, a Summoner is a weak wizard, that gets a free pet that is as powerful as a fighter of the same level.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Kiero on August 23, 2012, 12:50:07 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575742
Level 20 is bonkers in any edition, I always play from 5th-12th level in 3e. Lost of CO people tend to forget that noone starts at 20.


I'm sure there are some games that do start at 20. More to the point, not everyone starts at 1st.

The D&D4e game I'm playing right now started at 7th level (and thank fuck for that I, didn't have to suffer the tedium of levels 1-3). I don't think my table is unusual for starting D&D games, even ones not 3.x, at higher-than-1st level.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;575749
D&D is not solely about killing things. A campaign that consisted only of room after room after level appropriate room of adversaries would get boring really quick. The game needs things like exploration, puzzles, social encounters, domain management, etc. to keep it interesting and to give context to the kobold slaughtering.


While I don't think any game I play in ever needs puzzles (I fucking hate puzzles), I'm largely with you.

Context is the key word here, what separates a boring crawl from one fight to the next (and I don't do dungeoneering at all) is having a meaning to the fight and win conditions that aren't simply "we killed them and took their stuff".

It was context that drove us to risk a TPK in taking on a tough fight with our resources at least half-depleted last session. Because if we retreated we'd fail to stop the eruption in time, and might not be able to return to deal with the threat.

So we knowingly entered a fight that could result in the deaths of all the PCs because the alternative was to accept failure and disaster for the people counting on us.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 23, 2012, 01:01:14 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;575749
Waaaah Stop liking things I dislike.


but this time you managed to write a post not so filled with bile no sane individual would willingly read it. You're halfway to sounding like a real person good job.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575776
but this time you managed to write a post not so filled with bile no sane individual would willingly read it. You're halfway to sounding like a real person good job.


Just because I outright call you a fuck, does not mean that you aren't, in fact, a fuck.

I also see that you have no actual counterpoint, so how about you stop shitting up my thread and go back to furiously, sweatily masturbating over an open copy of Book of Nine Swords while leering into a mirror and calling yourself a "dirty, dirty boi"...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 23, 2012, 02:20:38 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;575798
Waaaah, LM is being mean to me


This tread came pre-trolled because it's a fucking troll thread, you have made no substantive or logical argument. All you have done is post

Quote from: Declan MacManus
Waaaah, Stop liking things I dislike


and I'm done even trying to respond to it in good faith. Enjoy being on my ignore list.

as for the rest of the OSR crowd, take a good long look at this thread and the people who started it. Take a good long look a Declan, you enable him with your bullshit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 02:24:07 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575807
This tread came pre-trolled because it's a fucking troll thread, you have made no substantive or logical argument. All you have done is post

and I'm done even trying to respond to it good faith. Enjoy being on my ignore list.

as for the rest of the OSR crowd, take a good long look at this thread and the people who started it. Take a good long look a Declan, you enable him with your bullshit.

Way to bitch out, bitch.

Run away with your tail inbetween your legs...it's what you're good at.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: 1989 on August 23, 2012, 02:27:36 PM
I always read Declan because he's a funny writer.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 23, 2012, 02:29:30 PM
Declan MacManus made a post and I don't have to see it.

Ignore user is the best feature ever.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 02:31:11 PM
Thrice! Thrice quoted on grognards.txt!

Whee :D
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 23, 2012, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575807
This tread came pre-trolled because it's a fucking troll thread, you have made no substantive or logical argument. All you have done is post



and I'm done even trying to respond to it in good faith. Enjoy being on my ignore list.

as for the rest of the OSR crowd, take a good long look at this thread and the people who started it. Take a good long look a Declan, you enable him with your bullshit.


OSR crowd?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jhkim on August 23, 2012, 02:34:30 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;575749
These traits are widely regarded as being among the worst that gamers can have. Therefore, it would not be too much of a stretch to say that people who exhibit these traits in abundance are assholes.

Among all of the various iterations of D&D, 3rd edition is the most supportive and rewarding of these traits.

So I posit then, that if 3E rewards asshole gamer traits more than any other edition of D&D, then the people who prefer to play 3E over other versions do so precisely because the game enables asshole-ish tendencies. Ergo, people who prefer 3E are assholes.

This is a fundamental flaw of logic.  Even if I grant your statement "assholes like 3E" (which I don't), it doesn't logically follow that "those who like 3E are assholes".  Jackasses like hay - this doesn't mean that any animal that likes hay is a jackass.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: jhkim;575816
This is a fundamental flaw of logic.  Even if I grant your statement "assholes like 3E" (which I don't), it doesn't logically follow that "those who like 3E are assholes".  Jackasses like hay - this doesn't mean that any animal that likes hay is a jackass.


My assertion is that the people who prefer 3rd edition over other editions do so BECAUSE they are assholes.

If they weren't assholes, then they would be playing something different is my assertion.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 23, 2012, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: Bill;575814
OSR crowd?


Benoist and his cronies, or at least I think thats the right term for them.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 23, 2012, 02:45:03 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575819
Benoist and his cronies. or at least I think thats the right term


I want cronies!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 02:52:07 PM
Quote from: Bill;575821
I want cronies!

Go to Labor Ready.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 23, 2012, 02:52:38 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;575819
Benoist and his cronies, or at least I think thats the right term for them.

I'm not an "OSR" whatever. I like some old school games, true, and like the game play of these games. I certainly like some of the "OSR" output in terms of products and have some good friends amongst the people that make them. What I'm not is some sort of chill for a nebulous "movement" mostly based on a blogosphere I don't read with any regularity whatsoever. So branding me "OSR" just because I like games like O/AD&D is a stretch.

As for cronies... whatever.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jhkim on August 23, 2012, 02:53:22 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;575817
My assertion is that the people who prefer 3rd edition over other editions do so BECAUSE they are assholes.

If they weren't assholes, then they would be playing something different is my assertion.

You can assert that, but none of the argument that you posted actually leads to that conclusion.  

In any case, I don't agree about your whole concept of "asshole".  Even if my group insists on playing by rules-as-written, and our adventures are solely about making the toughest party that beats the most monsters... that doesn't make us assholes.  I've played a number of times that were explicitly this - sometimes using board games rules (like Wrath of Ashardalon), but also sometimes using RPG rules and treating the adventure purely as a tactical challenge.  We enjoyed ourselves playing a game together and enjoying a fun social activity.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 03:02:07 PM
Quote from: jhkim;575824
You can assert that, but none of the argument that you posted actually leads to that conclusion.  

In any case, I don't agree about your whole concept of "asshole".  Even if my group insists on playing by rules-as-written, and our adventures are solely about making the toughest party that beats the most monsters... that doesn't make us assholes.  I've played a number of times that were explicitly this - sometimes using board games rules (like Wrath of Ashardalon), but also sometimes using RPG rules and treating the adventure purely as a tactical challenge.  We enjoyed ourselves playing a game together and enjoying a fun social activity.

Really?

Mind if I interview some of your neighbors and colleagues?

I'm not entirely sure that you would be the most objective arbiter on whether or not you qualify as an "asshole"!

I'm sure there are a lot of people reading this who are thinking:

"Waaaiiit a minute! 3rd edition is MY favorite version of D&D and I'm not an asshole! I'd log on and tell him so if I wasn't already busy raping puppies and stealing old peoples' social security checks!"

Again...people seem to think that I'm saying that 3ggers are asswads because they play 3rd edition.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that they play 3E because they are asswads.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: mcbobbo on August 23, 2012, 03:06:42 PM
Quote from: Bill;575821
I want cronies!


Sorry, that requires the Leadership feat.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: RandallS on August 23, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;575817
My assertion is that the people who prefer 3rd edition over other editions do so BECAUSE they are assholes.


You've presented no evidence to support such a claim. You have presented evidence that 3.x and the culture around it is attractive to and often supportive of people who were considered poor players in previous editions (e.g. min-maxers, rules lawyers, munchkins, etc), but that's a long way from showing that everyone who prefers  D&D 3.x is a min-maxer, rules lawyer, munchkin, or other asshole player.

I know many people who prefer 3.x but play in more like 2e and whose games do not welcome min-maxers, rules lawyer, munchkins, etc.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 23, 2012, 03:13:34 PM
Quote from: RandallS;575833
You've presented no evidence to support such a claim. You have presented evidence that 3.x and the culture around it is attractive to and often supportive of people who were considered poor players in previous editions (e.g. min-maxers, rules lawyers, munchkins, etc), but that's a long way from showing that everyone who prefers  D&D 3.x is a min-maxer, rules lawyer, munchkin, or other asshole player.

I know many people who prefer 3.x but play in more like 2e and whose games do not welcome min-maxers, rules lawyer, munchkins, etc.


Ditto to that. There is a difference.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 03:26:56 PM
Quote from: RandallS;575833

I know many people who prefer 3.x but play in more like 2e and whose games do not welcome min-maxers, rules lawyer, munchkins, etc.


So they play 3E for the same kind of game they could have playing 2E, presumably just for the love of bureaucratic number crunching.

Sounds like a bunch of assholes to me.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 23, 2012, 03:40:16 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;575749

These traits are widely regarded as being among the worst that gamers can have.


These come WAY, WAY after lack of proper hygiene at every table I've played at.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 23, 2012, 03:43:09 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;575838
So they play 3E for the same kind of game they could have playing 2E, presumably just for the love of bureaucratic number crunching.

Sounds like a bunch of assholes to me.

Not necessarily. For instance, I can see how a player might feel there is more immersive value in taking actual levels in a thaumaturgist prestige class rather than a kit, or having a feat to simulate a third arm graft instead of just a magic item (that wouldn't be my personal preference to be clear, but I can see how these elements can hold some appeal on the level of simulation of the characters progression and attachment to the game world rather than "holy game balance" and "nerdgasm" mathematical concerns).
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 23, 2012, 03:45:36 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;575842
These come WAY, WAY after lack of proper hygiene at every table I've played at.


Is that something you really see often? Where do you play at, primarily?

I'm asking in good faith here.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 03:48:25 PM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;575842
These come WAY, WAY after lack of proper hygiene at every table I've played at.

I'm inclined to believe that the type who locks themselves in a room with a stack of books and empty bottles of Zoloft are the same who forget to shower for days at a time.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 23, 2012, 03:50:08 PM
Quote from: Benoist;575843
Not necessarily. For instance, I can see how a player might feel there is more immersive value in taking actual levels in a thaumaturgist prestige class rather than a kit, or having a feat to simulate a third arm graft instead of just a magic item (that wouldn't be my personal preference to be clear, but I can see how these elements can hold some appeal on the level of simulation of the characters progression and attachment to the game world rather than "holy game balance" and "nerdgasm" mathematical concerns).


I see it as very little actual benefit for a lot of extra work.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 23, 2012, 03:52:49 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;575847
I see it as very little actual benefit for a lot of extra work.


OK. I do too. But what if that extra little benefit meant the difference between a character you like and one you are really invested in, as a player? Wouldn't there be value in that then, from an immersive standpoint?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 23, 2012, 03:55:27 PM
Using Declan's logic here:

*The rpgsite is one of the only sites that allow users to call  other users cunts with no repercussion.  

*Being able to call people cunts willy nilly is an asshole behavior, and thus attracts assholes as members

*If you are a member of therpgsite and post there more than anywhere else, you are an asshole.



That's literally the exact argument Declan is making about 3e.  Congrats Declan, you are using the same logic as people on SA.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Marleycat on August 23, 2012, 04:03:39 PM
Quote
That's literally the exact argument Declan is making about 3e. Congrats Declan, you are using the same logic as people on SA.
Don't forget TBP they are famous for it. Let's just say I disagree with the whole premise because I ran into my fair share of assholes in every version of Dnd and other games and the difference in percentages wasn't appreciable enough to care.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 23, 2012, 04:10:54 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;575853
Don't forget TBP they are famous for it. .


No, the TBP version would be:

*TBP allows you to make passive aggressive attacks against other people if you're a transgender minority atheist.

*So TBP attracts transgender minority atheists

*If you post at TBP, you must be a transgender minority atheist.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: The Traveller on August 23, 2012, 05:31:15 PM
Quote from: Marleycat;575853
Don't forget TBP they are famous for it.
Eh I'm still waiting for my natty black fascist uniform. Pundit.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Emperor Norton on August 23, 2012, 06:50:37 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575849
That's literally the exact argument Declan is making about 3e.  Congrats Declan, you are using the same logic as people on SA.


Exactly this.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 23, 2012, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: Emperor Norton;575924
Exactly this.


Are you sure Declan isn't just being ironic?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: deadDMwalking on August 23, 2012, 07:02:29 PM
Quote from: Benoist;575845
Is that something you really see often? Where do you play at, primarily?

I'm asking in good faith here.


Not something I see often - but I have seen it.  People that don't practice good hygiene are not welcome at my house.  

I've also been to GenCon once.  It is possible that some allowance should be made for the possible long waking hours and number of people sharing a single room (and therefore, shower), but I'm not inclined to make it.  

There are plenty of behaviors that aren't acceptable in any type of gaming environment, and the first are always the same ones as at work.  Keep yourself clean; no unwanted touching or leering; etc.  

Then you start on the ones that are really important to gaming.  The first and cardinal rule for players: Make a character that has a reason for wanting to work with the other members of the party.  

I've had a player that wanted to go off and do solo-shit.  I let him leave the party and we'd give him 5 minutes to describe his long journey to a far away land while spending 55 minutes doing the actual adventure...  It wouldn't matter if he had none of the problems that Declan thinks are a problem.  

That's not to say you can't have intra-party conflict.  But you have to be willing to work together.  

The second rule: It's a game - try to have fun and try to make sure everyone else is having fun with you.

Again, it doesn't matter what kind of game you're playing.  If you're being careful to observe rule #2, you can be as Pun-Pun as you want.  It's only a problem if people aren't having fun.  So if Declan is at your table, watch your Pun-Pun making self.  If that's the only way for you to have fun and it ruins his fun, the two shouldn't be playing together.  But for most people, there's a middle ground.  

This also covers what 'Rating' a game should have.  Some gamers aren't comfortable with the death of a child, some think that if evil doesn't do anything WICKED, then what's the point.  

There are plenty of ways to be an asshole that Declan didn't mention.  As far as those things go, they're not NECESSARILY a problem, but they can be.  

I think 3.x has some major flaws, but for me, it's still the best game around.  But I honestly don't care if Declan thinks I'm an asshole either in addition to or because of that.  I like to believe that it's enough we're all enjoying our shared hobby.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Emperor Norton on August 23, 2012, 07:09:34 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;575926
Are you sure Declan isn't just being ironic?


Are you positing that Declan has carried this exact argument for 128 pages of this thread, and doesn't actually mean it the way he has been stating it for those 128 pages? You find that plausible?

If that is the case, which I find highly unlikely, then I suppose his problem is that he is absolutely shit at communication and/or is actively trolling since he isn't correcting anyone's assumptions of his belief.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 23, 2012, 07:16:45 PM
Yeah see, I think the good hygiene thing is not just a given for RPG game sessions, but for normal social interactions period. If you don't have a good personal hygiene, well, something's wrong with you in terms of sociability and self-respect, period.

I tend to game with people I know prior to the game sessions, whether they are gamers or not before hand, i.e I will mostly game at home with people I've myself invited to play. So I don't see a lack of personal hygiene at my game tables in general.

Now the two basic principles that follow in your post, I don't object to them either. I like the first one and that is something I stress as well in the pre-game session. The second one is also something that I point out explicitly - one wouldn't have to in an ideal world, but it helps to keep the perspective that this is a game and the point is to have fun together. Helps make the game less intimidating for newbies, too.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 24, 2012, 08:19:18 AM
Quote from: deadDMwalking;575928
Not something I see often - but I have seen it.  People that don't practice good hygiene are not welcome at my house.  

I've also been to GenCon once.  It is possible that some allowance should be made for the possible long waking hours and number of people sharing a single room (and therefore, shower), but I'm not inclined to make it.  

There are plenty of behaviors that aren't acceptable in any type of gaming environment, and the first are always the same ones as at work.  Keep yourself clean; no unwanted touching or leering; etc.  

Then you start on the ones that are really important to gaming.  The first and cardinal rule for players: Make a character that has a reason for wanting to work with the other members of the party.  

I've had a player that wanted to go off and do solo-shit.  I let him leave the party and we'd give him 5 minutes to describe his long journey to a far away land while spending 55 minutes doing the actual adventure...  It wouldn't matter if he had none of the problems that Declan thinks are a problem.  

That's not to say you can't have intra-party conflict.  But you have to be willing to work together.  

The second rule: It's a game - try to have fun and try to make sure everyone else is having fun with you.

Again, it doesn't matter what kind of game you're playing.  If you're being careful to observe rule #2, you can be as Pun-Pun as you want.  It's only a problem if people aren't having fun.  So if Declan is at your table, watch your Pun-Pun making self.  If that's the only way for you to have fun and it ruins his fun, the two shouldn't be playing together.  But for most people, there's a middle ground.  

This also covers what 'Rating' a game should have.  Some gamers aren't comfortable with the death of a child, some think that if evil doesn't do anything WICKED, then what's the point.  

There are plenty of ways to be an asshole that Declan didn't mention.  As far as those things go, they're not NECESSARILY a problem, but they can be.  

I think 3.x has some major flaws, but for me, it's still the best game around.  But I honestly don't care if Declan thinks I'm an asshole either in addition to or because of that.  I like to believe that it's enough we're all enjoying our shared hobby.


Is WANTED touching and leering ok?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 24, 2012, 08:26:48 AM
Quote from: Bill;576041
Is WANTED touching and leering ok?


As long as its a 'good' touch.

A bad touch will cause you to recoil in horror from GMs forever without the loving embrace of an empowering RAW to comfort you and reassure to you that everything will be alright.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 24, 2012, 09:47:57 AM
Quote from: Benoist;575848
OK. I do too. But what if that extra little benefit meant the difference between a character you like and one you are really invested in, as a player? Wouldn't there be value in that then, from an immersive standpoint?


I don't see investment in one's character as being a product of character generation, but rather it is the result of having played the character through numerous adventures.

I don't see how anyone can become invested simply by throwing together a few feats and skill ranks. I know that it happens...but I can't fathom HOW it happens.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 24, 2012, 09:49:29 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575849
Using Declan's logic here:

*The rpgsite is one of the only sites that allow users to call  other users cunts with no repercussion.  

*Being able to call people cunts willy nilly is an asshole behavior, and thus attracts assholes as members

*If you are a member of therpgsite and post there more than anywhere else, you are an asshole.


Yes.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 24, 2012, 09:55:21 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;576065
Yes.


Combining those two chains of logic together, then, we discover that Declan's favorite game IS D&D 3.5.

So tell us all about your ideas for tweaking a Warblade build, Declan?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 24, 2012, 09:57:13 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;576068
Combining those two chains of logic together, then, we discover that Declan's favorite game IS D&D 3.5.

So tell us all about your ideas for tweaking a Warblade build, Declan?




:rotfl:

Shit man hot coffee out the nose ain't fun!
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 24, 2012, 09:59:14 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard;576069
:rotfl:

Shit man hot coffee out the nose ain't fun!


Isn't a Warblade a 4E prototype?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 24, 2012, 10:01:47 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;576062
I don't see investment in one's character as being a product of character generation, but rather it is the result of having played the character through numerous adventures.

I don't see how anyone can become invested simply by throwing together a few feats and skill ranks. I know that it happens...but I can't fathom HOW it happens.


Also, this.  ALTHOUGH, I would add that at some points, regardless of the game, it's not until I'm working on 'putting together' the character, whether it's building the feats, skills, etc, or just buying equipment and making choices about which specialization to take, that I start establishing the character's voice in my head and figure out their personality.  So a decent part of the time, the 'investment' of having the character come alive to me takes place during character generation.

Which sucks if they die early on, but hey, they're fictional.  I've had real friends die, so I don't get all bent out of shape when someone who never actually existed does.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 24, 2012, 10:04:56 AM
Quote from: Bill;576071
Isn't a Warblade a 4E prototype?


I thought it was a book of nine swords prestige class .  

(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/look-at-all-the-fucks-i-give-anakin.jpg)

I pretty much put that book right next to that book about the funky magic using rings on my list of fuck right off and don't ask me about playing shit from there.

I allowed people to play prestige classes from Vile Darkness before I'd let anything from those books into my games.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 24, 2012, 10:09:55 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;576075
I thought it was a book of nine swords prestige class .  

(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/look-at-all-the-fucks-i-give-anakin.jpg)

I pretty much put that book right next to that book about the funky magic using rings on my list of fuck right off and don't ask me about playing shit from there.

I allowed people to play prestige classes from Vile Darkness before I'd let anything from those books into my games.


Might have been an early version of 4E with encounter powers?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 24, 2012, 10:24:05 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;576068
So tell us all about your ideas for tweaking a Warblade build, Declan?

Step 1: Pay some tourette's kid to go to the game in your stead and shout "Ancient Mountain Hammer" every other attack.

Step 2: Spend the evening with a sparked joint, a glass of single malt scotch, and your dick in a spanish girls mouth.

Step 3: Nap.

That kids, is not only how you optimize a warblade, but also how you optimize your life.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 24, 2012, 10:41:33 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;576085
Step 1: Pay some tourette's kid to go to the game in your stead and shout "Ancient Mountain Hammer" every other attack.

Step 2: Spend the evening with a sparked joint, a glass of single malt scotch, and your dick in a spanish girls mouth.

Step 3: Nap.

That kids, is not only how you optimize a warblade, but also how you optimize your life.


I can't find that Build on the Char-Op boards, but it sounds great!
Might be overpowered.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 24, 2012, 10:53:50 AM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;576085
Step 1: Pay some tourette's kid to go to the game in your stead and shout "Ancient Mountain Hammer" every other attack.

Step 2: Spend the evening with a sparked joint, a glass of single malt scotch, and your dick in a spanish girls mouth.

Step 3: Nap.

That kids, is not only how you optimize a warblade, but also how you optimize your life.


Quote from: Bill;576090
I can't find that Build on the Char-Op boards, but it sounds great!
Might be overpowered.


No sustained DPS, all burst.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 24, 2012, 10:54:58 AM
Quote from: Bill;576090
I can't find that Build on the Char-Op boards, but it sounds great!
Might be overpowered.

No...the only problem is excessive burst damage.

Get it? 'Cause "burst"? Eh? EHHH?

Nobody gets me : (

EDIT: Shit. Elric beat me to the punch...line.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: crkrueger on August 24, 2012, 11:04:10 AM
With that build, you don't want to finish first.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 24, 2012, 01:03:33 PM
Quote from: Bill;576078
Might have been an early version of 4E with encounter powers?


Suposedly ToB:Bo9S was part the 4e prototype codenamed "Orcus", but then Mearls had it scrapped and we got the 4e we all know and loathe. ToB manuvers are diffrent in that it's possible to recover expended manuvers in combat.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 24, 2012, 01:20:38 PM
Quote from: Declan MacManus;576062
I don't see investment in one's character as being a product of character generation, but rather it is the result of having played the character through numerous adventures.
I'm fine with that too. Lots of old school gamers feel that way. I think that's not a general feeling with the gaming population though. I suspect that most gamers actually feel it's a function of both character generation and actual play, things like choosing a class and a style for the character, giving him a name at character generation, those kinds of things, and then playing that character in the actual campaign.

So unless you're saying that people who come up with more than a bunch of stats on the character sheet at chargen, but give their characters a personality, likes and dislikes, a name, those kinds of things, are doing it wrong somehow, I think we can say that for most people it's not the function of one or the other but a mixture of both.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;576062
I don't see how anyone can become invested simply by throwing together a few feats and skill ranks. I know that it happens...but I can't fathom HOW it happens.

Well I can see how you can look at the feats and wonder what would best represent the character you have in mind, and how looking through character options could give you some ideas to take the character in different directions, not necessarily the optimal one mind you, but just going "hey that's cool". I was playing a Dwarf Fighter like this in a D&D game that discussed cosmology with the elves of the group regularly. I came up with an ancient dwarven mythology about the "Machine and the Mother" and how the dwarves had been pushed to live underground and solely worship the Machine in ages past. My character evolved and took some Druid levels later on. Not something I had planned in advance, but it's just how he got role played. If the 3rd ed rules did not allow for this kind of character development, I might not have gone there, I do not know. I think that it helped me craft the character I wanted to role play bit by bit, though.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: One Horse Town on August 24, 2012, 07:49:16 PM
Declan, or should i say Shazbot79, why have you created a new account to go 'full retard'?

I await with baited breath.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 24, 2012, 08:28:55 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;576337
Declan, or should i say Shazbot79, why have you created a new account to go 'full retard'?

I await with baited breath.


I thought so.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 24, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
Quote from: One Horse Town;576337
Declan, or should i say Shazbot79, why have you created a new account to go 'full retard'?

I await with baited breath.


Interesting. Let's hear the explanation...
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Declan MacManus on August 25, 2012, 09:39:54 AM
I created an account to go full retard.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 25, 2012, 10:51:55 AM
Quote from: Me;574603
You know what. From now on, I'm just going to assume you're trolling. I would prefer to think you're a masterful Poe trying to discredit the anti-3e folks than think that you are actually laying out the contents of your warped and defective mind for all to read. Keep on trolling asshole.


Quote from: Declan MacManus;576453
I created an account to go full retard.


Called it.

As much as this debacle of a thread has been an embarrassment for me personally (and it has ^_^' ). I salute you mister unintelligible troll guy. You ran as far to the extreme as possible on the anti-3e thing and Benoist still defended you against my criticism. Good job.

One more time.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;576453
I created an account to go full retard.


Ben seems to think otherwise.

Quote from: Benoist;575420
I'm making neither one of those claims, actually. He is not posting completely acceptable posts, since his style is obviously insulting and abrasive (which I've pointed out just above, if you've been following), but neither is he *just* gushing bile.

I know you've got a hard on for me and are going about your little private crusade, but please, actually read the posts before you go on building your imaginary arguments, okay?


Quote from: Benoist;575503
To be fair, Declan has specifically stated he was not saying that 3rd ed was making people assholes (see OP of related thread). That's what people thought he said, but that's not what he actually said, and he said so explicitly there.


Quote from: Benoist;575471

I don't think Declan is trolling as much as he's saying what he thinks in totally extremely, in your face, "fuck you" style. Now I know some of you have definitely made the determination that he's a troll. Well so be it. I don't think he is, or not in the way you think he is, in any case. Just like I don't think that MGuy sets out to being a troll by the way, though his head is so far up his ass as being virtually unable to have any conversation about 3rd ed in good faith.


Benoist, you my friend have been Poe'd
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 25, 2012, 11:04:24 AM
One more time.

Quote from: Declan MacManus;576453
I created an account to go full retard.


Ben seems to think otherwise.

Quote from: Benoist;575420
I'm making neither one of those claims, actually. He is not posting completely acceptable posts, since his style is obviously insulting and abrasive (which I've pointed out just above, if you've been following), but neither is he *just* gushing bile.

I know you've got a hard on for me and are going about your little private crusade, but please, actually read the posts before you go on building your imaginary arguments, okay?


Quote from: Benoist;575503
To be fair, Declan has specifically stated he was not saying that 3rd ed was making people assholes (see OP of related thread). That's what people thought he said, but that's not what he actually said, and he said so explicitly there.


Quote from: Benoist;575471

I don't think Declan is trolling as much as he's saying what he thinks in totally extremely, in your face, "fuck you" style. Now I know some of you have definitely made the determination that he's a troll. Well so be it. I don't think he is, or not in the way you think he is, in any case. Just like I don't think that MGuy sets out to being a troll by the way, though his head is so far up his ass as being virtually unable to have any conversation about 3rd ed in good faith.


Benoist, you my friend have been Poe'd
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 25, 2012, 11:11:26 AM
Tried to tell Benoist earlier, but he just wouldn't listen.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 25, 2012, 11:12:46 AM
Yup. I stand corrected.

Sockpuppetry is a bannable offense on this site, and Declan/shazbot basically admitted here he wanted to go "full retard", admitting to the charges without the shred of an excuse, quite the contrary, actually.

Henceforth, it's a ban.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 25, 2012, 11:18:34 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;576464
Benoist, you my friend have been Poe'd


Benoist (as shown in the OP) basically agreed with what Declan was saying.

People online tend to give unconditional passes to those who agree with them, and automatically assume the very worse of those who don't. It takes someone rather exceptional IME to not fall into that trap.

Benoist wasn't exceptional. Some others here were however, and that gives one hope.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 25, 2012, 11:18:55 AM
Oh and Lord Mistborn? I'm grateful you deleted your last post. Try to spam the thread by posting the same message again "one more time" (sic) and I ban you too. I'm not joking.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 25, 2012, 11:24:07 AM
Quote from: gleichman;576470
Benoist (as shown in the OP) basically agreed with what Declan was saying.

Well actually if you have eyes to see I have not been agreeing with Declan entirely (that all people who like 3rd ed are in effect assholes) and rather agreed that there are elements of 3rd ed's design that specifically appeal to assholes. Which has been further discussed, debated... the posts are there for anyone to see, starting by the OP itself.

You'll notice that I specifically debated Declan at the end of the thread about this precise distinction. Again, the posts are on record.

I've been owned by Declan obviously, since I thought there was some sincerity behind the aggressivity and insults, and was proven wrong, but let's not get carried away and go full retard ourselves, alright?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 25, 2012, 11:24:25 AM
Quote from: Benoist;576466
Yup. I stand corrected.


^_^

Nice to see Ben is owning this properly, I would suggest he use this a an opportunity to reflect on his actions as of late.

Quote from: Benoist;576473
Well actually if you have eyes to see I have not been agreeing with Declan entirely (that all people who like 3rd ed are in effect assholes) and rather agreed that there are elements of 3rd ed's design that specifically appeal to assholes. Which has been further discussed, debated... the posts are there for anyone to see, starting by the OP itself.

You'll notice that I specifically debated Declan at the end of the thread about this precise distinction. Again, the posts are on record.

I've been owned by Declan obviously, since I thought there was some sincerity behind the aggressivity and insults, and was proven wrong, but let's not get carried away and go full retard ourselves, alright?


-_- or not that's fine too.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: One Horse Town on August 25, 2012, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: Benoist;576471
Oh and Lord Mistborn? I'm grateful you deleted your last post. Try to spam the thread by posting the same message again "one more time" (sic) and I ban you too. I'm not joking.


You need to step away from the keyboard mate.

Forget it and move on.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: gleichman on August 25, 2012, 11:32:52 AM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;576474
-_- or not that's fine too.


I didn't expect a different reaction. At this point I doubt that there's anything that would cause Benoist to reflect upon himself and the way he treats people.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 25, 2012, 11:51:34 AM
Quote from: Benoist;576473
Well actually if you have eyes to see I have not been agreeing with Declan entirely (that all people who like 3rd ed are in effect assholes) and rather agreed that there are elements of 3rd ed's design that specifically appeal to assholes. Which has been further discussed, debated... the posts are there for anyone to see, starting by the OP itself.

You'll notice that I specifically debated Declan at the end of the thread about this precise distinction. Again, the posts are on record.

I've been owned by Declan obviously, since I thought there was some sincerity behind the aggressivity and insults, and was proven wrong, but let's not get carried away and go full retard ourselves, alright?


Your objectivity called, it wants to kiss and make up.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 25, 2012, 02:28:34 PM
I just stepped away from the keyboard, walked in the sun, drew some more, and I just want say OHT was right. Nothing like some fresh air to put things into perspective. Thank you, mate.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 25, 2012, 11:24:42 PM
Quote from: gleichman;576477
I didn't expect a different reaction. At this point I doubt that there's anything that would cause Benoist to reflect upon himself and the way he treats people.
Seconded.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 26, 2012, 06:21:42 PM
Quote from: jeff37923;576483
Your objectivity called, it wants to kiss and make up.


Wait hold on, Benist has objectivity this is the first I've heard of it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 26, 2012, 08:10:09 PM
You should be banned just for having one of those stupid anime avatars.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 26, 2012, 08:55:20 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577015
You should be banned just for having one of those stupid anime avatars.


^_^ what can I say I'm a huge weeaboo.

Now if you excuse me I have to write up my latest gaming horror story.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: 1989 on August 26, 2012, 09:21:42 PM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577015
You should be banned just for having one of those stupid anime avatars.


Seconded.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 26, 2012, 09:40:07 PM
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577037
^_^ what can I say I'm a huge weeaboo.

Now if you excuse me I have to write up my latest gaming horror story.


Pretty much fits with how I envisioned you.

(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/158/5/3/Weeaboo_mp_by_KibaInuzukaLover.jpg)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: MGuy on August 27, 2012, 12:03:58 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577048
Pretty much fits with how I envisioned you.

(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/158/5/3/Weeaboo_mp_by_KibaInuzukaLover.jpg)


Not the  worst picture I've been shown of a grown hairy man in girl's clothing but I don't think I'll ever get used to it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 27, 2012, 12:31:51 AM
Quote from: MGuy;577078
Not the  worst picture I've been shown of a grown hairy man in girl's clothing but I don't think I'll ever get used to it.


He did say 'huge' :)
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 27, 2012, 07:59:42 PM
So I did give a lot more thought about this and considered the 3rd edition rules system and Pathfinder RPG. I went so far as to go back into my collection of titles pertaining to both games, and related d20 games besides. I had a look at supplements like Ghostwalk and Draconomicon. I considered Pathfinder itself, and its Golarion Campaign Setting. Looked at the modules. And the APs.

There's a lot of mechanical fudge in there, no doubt about it, and not all of it is to my liking, to be sure. But there are qualities to these games besides the precision of their rules, whether we are talking about the settings, the modules themselves, the characters and situations developed throughout the APs, and so on. Qualities which objectively speaking a great many fans do care about and play with and buy product for.

The bottom line is this: I was wrong. Jeff was right. It is a problem of people. Not a problem with the game itself. It might not mesh exactly with my needs or inclinations in some areas, but concentrating on these areas to declare that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system and those that like it was wrong.

So I apologize for debating this to the ground, when in truth I should have looked at stuff like Rappan Athuk and the Banewarrens and should have dismissed the charges out of hand.

So here you go. I was wrong. 3rd ed, Pathfinder can be great games. Just don't play with assholes, and don't be a dick. That's it, really.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Lord Mistborn on August 27, 2012, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: Benoist;577404
So I did give a lot more thought about this and considered the 3rd edition rules system and Pathfinder RPG. I went so far as to go back into my collection of titles pertaining to both games, and related d20 games besides. I had a look at supplements like Ghostwalk and Draconomicon. I considered Pathfinder itself, and its Golarion Campaign Setting. Looked at the modules. And the APs.

There's a lot of mechanical fudge in there, no doubt about it, and not all of it is to my liking, to be sure. But there are qualities to these games besides the precision of their rules, whether we are talking about the settings, the modules themselves, the characters and situations developed throughout the APs, and so on. Qualities which objectively speaking a great many fans do care about and play with and buy product for.

The bottom line is this: I was wrong. Jeff was right. It is a problem of people. Not a problem with the game itself. It might not mesh exactly with my needs or inclinations in some areas, but concentrating on these areas to declare that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system and those that like it was wrong.

So I apologize for debating this to the ground, when in truth I should have looked at stuff like Rappan Athuk and the Banewarrens and should have dismissed the charges out of hand.

So here you go. I was wrong. 3rd ed, Pathfinder can be great games. Just don't play with assholes, and don't be a dick. That's it, really.


Nice to see you've seen reason. As for the people I don't think alot of people are trusting enough to play the "winging it" style that people on this site advocate. I'm not just passing judgement on you guys, I don't trust myself to be fair if I'm not operating off a fair ruleset. My prefered way of dealing with rules arguments at the table is rock-paper-sicosors rather that arbitration.

What in the end keep me coming back to 3.5 is not the power builds but the limtless options. I feel even after almost a decade of playing 3e that there is still more I can do with the system. That's what has kept minmaxers still playing the game. Every minmaxer knows how rock the table with a Druid, what we generally want to do is make a character that fun, that brings something new and interesting to the table while still keeping up with the monsters.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Teazia on August 28, 2012, 03:28:50 AM
Wow, Ben capitulating.  Very well done.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: jeff37923 on August 28, 2012, 03:41:23 AM
Quote from: Benoist;577404
The bottom line is this: I was wrong. Jeff was right.


I've told Benoist that he is trying to give me a heart attack.


Quote from: Benoist;577404
It is a problem of people. Not a problem with the game itself. It might not mesh exactly with my needs or inclinations in some areas, but concentrating on these areas to declare that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system and those that like it was wrong.

So I apologize for debating this to the ground, when in truth I should have looked at stuff like Rappan Athuk and the Banewarrens and should have dismissed the charges out of hand.

So here you go. I was wrong. 3rd ed, Pathfinder can be great games. Just don't play with assholes, and don't be a dick. That's it, really.


I'm not trying to rub it in, but the above bears repeating because it can be applied to a huge number of games out there.

Quote from: Benoist;577404
Just don't play with assholes, and don't be a dick. That's it, really.


Seriously, 99% of the problems that we endlessly discuss here on these forums do come down to social ones about people - not the game itself as much. Do you trust the Gamemaster to not use his GMPC to overtake the game? Do you trust your Players to not twink out their character if you allow them to use some splatbooks? You get the idea.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 28, 2012, 09:02:24 AM
What is a Weeaboo, and do I even want to know?
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 28, 2012, 09:07:35 AM
Quote from: Bill;577498
What is a Weeaboo, and do I even want to know?

it's a japanese constructed slang word that literally means 'foreign lover', as in a paramour from a different culture.

in modern parlance it's really pretty much what the picture shows, someone with too much focus on anime instead of the culture as a whole.  It's on par with the grownup men collecting my little ponies, imo.

Orientophile is too cultured for them, Otaku implies some technical understanding, so it's pretty much stuck with the word that the whores use for their regular foreign customers.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Bill on August 28, 2012, 09:09:40 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577499
it's a japanese constructed slang word that literally means 'foreign lover', as in a paramour from a different culture.


Ok, that's not the horror I was expecting after seeing that picture.....
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 28, 2012, 09:10:46 AM
Quote from: Bill;577501
Ok, that's not the horror I was expecting after seeing that picture.....


Well, I was editing.. reread it now
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 28, 2012, 09:10:58 AM
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577015
You should be banned just for having one of those stupid anime avatars.


Hey! I resemble that remark.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Wolf, Richard on August 28, 2012, 09:27:58 AM
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577499
it's a japanese constructed slang word that literally means 'foreign lover', as in a paramour from a different culture.

in modern parlance it's really pretty much what the picture shows, someone with too much focus on anime instead of the culture as a whole.  It's on par with the grownup men collecting my little ponies, imo.

Orientophile is too cultured for them, Otaku implies some technical understanding, so it's pretty much stuck with the word that the whores use for their regular foreign customers.


That's interesting, because I'm pretty sure the origin of the term as a pejorative came from this Perry Bible Fellowship comic:
(http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF071-Weeaboo.gif)

Unwelcome anime fans on various forums got this comic posted as a reply to anything they said.  I was unaware that there was actually any connection to an actual Japanese term.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: vytzka on August 28, 2012, 09:32:59 AM
The original term was 'wapanese', as equivalent to 'wigger' in other circles (meaning white, that is 'fake'... you know what). Due to its obviously problematic nature some forum (4chan?) instituted an automatic replacement of the above term into 'weeaboo' (originating in the webcomic above) which was intended as a nonsense word with no prior connotations. However the target audience liked it so much they accepted and started using it.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Exploderwizard on August 28, 2012, 09:33:19 AM
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;577514
Unwelcome anime fans on various forums got this comic posted as a reply to anything they said.  I was unaware that there was actually any connection to an actual Japanese term.


Actual term? It became popular because Wapanese (wannabe-Japanese) was considered politically incorrect.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Sacrosanct on August 28, 2012, 09:56:59 AM
Quote from: vytzka;577503
Hey! I resemble that remark.


I'm not talking about all anime.  I'm talking about the school-girl with huge eyes meme.  It just screams to me of something a 12 year old thinks is cool, and is way overused.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Panzerkraken on August 28, 2012, 10:14:23 AM
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;577514
That's interesting, because I'm pretty sure the origin of the term as a pejorative came from this Perry Bible Fellowship comic:
(http://pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF071-Weeaboo.gif)

Unwelcome anime fans on various forums got this comic posted as a reply to anything they said.  I was unaware that there was actually any connection to an actual Japanese term.


Pshaw.  Facts again.  None of that, they have no place on the internet!

SPOILER (Hover over section below to view.)


I don't speak japanese, I was working with my korean, and there's usually overlap between a japanese constructed word (made up words using Kanji) and a korean sino-korean word (which have the same origins although koreans don't use Hanja (chinese characters) much anymore).  

So, in korean, wehgugin means 'foreigner' (literally person from a foreign country), and 'booin' is a term referring to the opposite in a relationship.

So, if you were just using the hanja, a combination could be put together for wehbooin, and japanese uses different sounds, which I thought could come together as wehaboo.


But all that's just self-justification.  I made an educated guess and I was wrong.
Title: "3rd ed is the game of choice for assholes"
Post by: Benoist on August 28, 2012, 10:18:19 AM
OK I, the OP, came to the conclusion the original contention behind this thread was false, Declan was a sock, and the discussion of weaboo is off topic. Let me do the honors and lock this thread.