Chapter 1
The first thing the book mentions and dice, and describes all the dice we all know from the d4 to the d100. It then moves on to creating a character and setting up your character sheet, which they say will fit on an index card and I believe they're right. This contrasts to the 5-7 page character sheets I used to use from the 4E Character Builder(I now use my iPad as my character sheet).
The next part is rolling ability scores, and the method involved is rolling 3d6 in order. This shows a contrast in style. In 3E and 4E, we usually used point buy to create characters based on a concept we put together before character creation with the intention of it being a long term commitment. The plan being that the game would be a long term campaign with an ongoing story that begins the first session. What completely random stat generation gives you is the element of surprise. You don't get the character you really wanted, and it doesn't really fit the play the character you imagine in a story that begins day 1 style. On the other hand, in a Gygaxian style deadly game, the randomness isn't so bad, as you'll likely be going through a few characters before one of them sticks, and just surviving for a few levels can build an attachment to it. That being said, the stats in this game don't do a lot. High Strength only adds +1 to hit and damage for 13+(an 18 doesn't really mean much, giving the same bonus as a 13), same for Dex and AC, Con and HP. I kind of like this, as I think the disparity between stat bonus for high and low stats in 3E/4E is too high, where if you don't have a high score you're going to suck at everything involving that stat. Interesting is that 13+ Wisdom and Charisma actually give you +5% experience points, so those stats actually do something. I wonder if OD&D was this way, where Charisma started out being helpful and then was abandoned and dumped for the next two or three editions.
Horseshit, and lame trolling at that.
You are baiting, TCO. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568) You can go fuck yourself.
They're random because they're aids to characterization, rather than indicators of success or failure.
In RPGs, ability scores are random in inverse proportion to how important they are.
In S&W, they mean, as you noted, very little. In 4E, they are used on nearly every kind of roll you'll make. Hence, S&W has almost completely random stats, and 4E has point buy.
Randomness isn't fair if the stats are vital. If they're not vital, then randomness simply allows fast character creation and imparts a pleasing variety to characterization. If you don't like the stats... just rationalize why your character acts the way you want him to, anyway.
Quote from: Benoist;499257Horseshit, and lame trolling at that.
You are baiting, TCO. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568) You can go fuck yourself.
Yes, that is obvious here. However I think it is indicative of how scared TCO is that his previous trolling arguements are being undermined.
Chapter 2: Character Classes
First of is Clerics, and the first thing I notice is that their Hit Die is 1d6+1, which is mathematically similar to 1d8. Like basic D&D, the Cleric does not start with a spell at 1st level, unless you get the bonus spell for 13+ Wisdom. Spells go up to level 7, but there's a big wait until level 6/7 spells. Next up is the Fighting Man. He gets 1d6+2 as his Hit Die(again, mathematically similar to 1d10), and his saving throws are one better than the Cleric. His only class feature is getting multiple attacks equal to his level against creatures with less than one Hit Die. He does get proficiency in everything, like always. Rounding out things is the Magic User, who gets 1d6-1 HP per level(again, similar to the d4). He also gets +2 saving throws vs. spells, which seems pretty handy. Next we have races as classes. First up is the Dwarf, who aside from trading multiple attacks vs. weak enemies for +4 saves vs magical effects(I'd be inclined to take that trade) seems almost an exact copy of the Fighter. This Dwarf doesn't seem to have any level limits, but levels slowly past 6. Next is Elves, who gain darkvision and find secret doors, and can go back and forth between Fighting Man and Magic User. The system for this seems rather bizarre to me. You can pick a class at the start of the day, you are purely that class(you forget the other one?) and you apply your experience points to that class only. I'm not really sure why you'd switch back and forth. Leveling is expensive past level 9, but again no level limits(I'm surprised). Then we have the Halfling, who sucks, unless he's a Thief(included later in the book) because the book isn't clear on whether the Halfling has a level limit as a Thief(unlike being limited to a level 4 Fighting Man). Last part of this chapter is choosing an alignment, and the rules here are a bit vague. It mentions Law, Chaos, Evil, Good, and Neutral but doesn't specify how to use them. It mentions if you want a default, go with Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral as the three alignments to choose from, like BECMI. I'm not really a fan of alignment anymore. After a while I found the 9 alignments of 1E-3.5E somewhat silly and limiting, and liked how 4E shook that up and in particular removed alignment from almost all game mechanics. I'm curious to see if alignment has any game mechanics attached to it in later chapters.
Quote from: Benoist;499257Horseshit, and lame trolling at that.
You are baiting, TCO. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568) You can go fuck yourself.
I'm only baiting so much as you choose to be baited. I'm doing this perfectly straight, with the book next to me and describing what I read and how I feel about it. I plan on being honest and non-inflammatory.
Chapter 2: Character Classes(addendum)
(It occurred later that I left this out)
There are only three classes here, and three races. One of the races copies two of the three classes(though only one at a time), the Dwarf is very similar to the Fighting Man, and the Halfling sucks. So in the end, pretty much three classes, mechanically speaking(playing Elves and Dwarves does mean something aesthetically). This is a little less choice than I'm used to, pretty much dating back forever. When I began playing with 2E, We had 8(10 if you include specialist Priests and Wizards) classes and a pile of multiclass options. 3E and 4E have dozens, and a multiclassing extravaganza. That being said, the three most important bases are covered, and while I like options I don't think it ruins the game to only have three(or so). I first picked up the BECMI books as a child, and read them to the point of memorization(never could get a game off the ground, 12yr olds make horrible DMs), and the aesthetics of this book kind of bring me back to those days. The biggest change for me is that the system is as bare as it is after playing 10 years of mechanically arcane D&D, with infinite fiddly bits. Its intriguing, but I'm not sure I'd run it over 2E, which I have a long history with and scratches a similar itch.
A point about the elf. You switch because you're not always going out with the same group. In a campaign, you could have 20 different characters, each coming back to base and going out on adventures in shifting groups.
In that situation, an elf is a useful and versatile character. Need a fighter for an adventure? He's a fighter. Need a magic-user? He's there.
Chapter 3: Items and Equipment
I take a look at the mundane items list, and it brings back memories of playing low level 2E. In those days, we played games where our characters really didn't have high impact skills(like 3E or 4E) to solve problems, and for the first few levels(1-4) the quasi-random things in your inventory actually mattered, and you'd find creative ways to use them. My personal favorite item was paper and ink, which I always found a use for, writing notes to NPCs and drawing things we had to remember. In 3E, PCs started kicking ass about level 3 and our mundane inventory got boring, and in 4E you kick ass from level 1. I played 3E starting at level 1 so rarely I can't specifically remember doing it(I had to fight tooth and nail as a DM to start any lower than 5th). I've started at level 1 many times as a 4E player, and generally I usually pick up an Adventurer's Kit(just for appearances) and nothing else, and never ever use it. That stuff just can't seem to compete with 4E combat ability or the skills the party has, and looking back on when inventory did matter, I kind of miss it. All my old friends are on this list, which looks similar to any I've read from 1E on.
There is a weapon section, which seems to have the damage dice from 1E(vs small or medium enemies). Is this a change from OD&D, I thought everything was d6s? No bother, its more interesting to have weapons deal varying damage. Bows and Darts also have higher rates of fire than just once per turn, again mirroring AD&D. The book gives two options for AC, using descending AC(presumably with THAC0) or ascending AC like 3E.
Last is a section on Encumbrance, historically one of the most ignored rules in the game. More weight slows you down as usual, and they give vague rules for movement. We do have the classic D&D rule that coins/gems are 10 to a pound, with all the frustrating consequences I remember(and why we used to love the Bag of Holding so much). There's a neat little line about it, where the book says "but that's just the way of things in a fantasy world. Coins should clink, and gems should be the size of dice". I remember all my immature monty haul games where we would try to load and overload our characters to the maximum limit trying to carry thousands of coins that weighed 1/10 of a pound, and playing the AD&D computer games which enforced this rule, and having to throw away treasure. I think 4E has rules for Encumbrance, though I have yet to see them used.
There's an interesting bit on movement, detailing circumstances when you are allowed and forbidden to map. I've never played in a game that hardcore(not with real people, though I played a shit ton of The Bard's Tale for Apple II and mapping was 80% of the game)about mapping, and its interesting to see it put in print.
Quote from: Kaldric;499264A point about the elf. You switch because you're not always going out with the same group. In a campaign, you could have 20 different characters, each coming back to base and going out on adventures in shifting groups.
In that situation, an elf is a useful and versatile character. Need a fighter for an adventure? He's a fighter. Need a magic-user? He's there.
Ah, makes a little sense when you describe it that way. It seems a bit frustrating to split your gear and xp between them though.
Casting spells in heavy armor makes up for it, for me. Elves had to have the restrictions they did, back then, or everyone would have been an elf. They were bad-ass.
Quote from: Kaldric;499270Casting spells in heavy armor makes up for it, for me. Elves had to have the restrictions they did, back then, or everyone would have been an elf. They were bad-ass.
I missed the casting in magical armor part. That does make a big difference.
I'm going to continue this tomorrow, I'm falling asleep.
A 3e player reads 4e DnD.
It sucks.
The End.
Quote from: Rincewind1;499277A 3e player reads 4e DnD.
It sucks.
The End.
1/10
Considering this previous post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568), maybe I'll regret this, but I'm willing to give TCO the benefit of doubt.
Interesting to learn that you've entered the hobby via 2e. So did I (actually BECMI/RC followed by 2e), but I've gone the opposite way; bought into 3e, burned out circa 2007-2008, and have been taking up pre-2e D&D and its retro-clones since then.
Is this just a "let's read" thread, or do you intend to get actual gaming done with S&W?
I don't really care too much if he likes the game. I didn't write it. I don't care if he persuades other people not to play it. I'm not selling it. I'm simply using his posts to practice defending/explaining S&W style games to someone somewhat unfamiliar with them, which, when I use such a game - suitably modified to my taste - in the open table game I'm planning, I'll have some spiels ready.
So I get utility out of the discussion whether he's sincere or not.
Quote from: The Butcher;499314Considering this previous post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568), maybe I'll regret this, but I'm willing to give TCO the benefit of doubt.
Interesting to learn that you've entered the hobby via 2e. So did I (actually BECMI/RC followed by 2e), but I've gone the opposite way; bought into 3e, burned out circa 2007-2008, and have been taking up pre-2e D&D and its retro-clones since then.
Is this just a "let's read" thread, or do you intend to get actual gaming done with S&W?
Its more of a "let's read" thread. I bought this book about a year ago and while I found some of it interesting, my verdict was to stick with 2E for this sort of thing.
Is this the Swords & Wizardry (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_70/6374000/6374501/4/print/ebookfinal9.pdf) being discussed? By Mythmere games?
Note that the link currently takes you to the Fourth Printing of the book from May 2011 published by Mythmere Games.
Quote from: Ram;499406Is this the Swords & Wizardry (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_70/6374000/6374501/4/print/ebookfinal9.pdf) being discussed? By Mythmere games?
Note that the link currently takes you to the Fourth Printing of the book from May 2011 published by Mythmere Games.
Yeah, though the copy I'm reading is the Third Printing.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;499260Next is Elves, who gain darkvision and find secret doors, and can go back and forth between Fighting Man and Magic User. The system for this seems rather bizarre to me. You can pick a class at the start of the day, you are purely that class(you forget the other one?) and you apply your experience points to that class only. I'm not really sure why you'd switch back and forth.
In game fluff-wise, I play it like the elf is normally a competent fighter, but to get in touch with his/her magical/fey nature has to go through some sort of intense meditation or ritual, and channeling that power weakens them physically for the following day.
It's as good an explanation as any.
Quote from: Ram;499406Is this the Swords & Wizardry (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_70/6374000/6374501/4/print/ebookfinal9.pdf) being discussed? By Mythmere games?
Note that the link currently takes you to the Fourth Printing of the book from May 2011 published by Mythmere Games.
How much do you know about original Dungeons & Dragons? The rules and it's history?
Some of the design questions you bring up have been asked by.others. Some don't have answers some do.
One comment I will make now is that Swords & Wizardry (all three versions) is an interpretation of original D&D. Due to way it's written several sections of the rules can be read in different ways. For example, the elves switching between fighter and magic-user. The aggregate effects is that all OD&D campaigns are house ruled. There is no by the book OD&D. Hence, and Matt Finch as stated this, Swords & Wizardry is an interpretation.
Early D&D tournaments often has a page or more of house rules on how that particular event was going to handle D&D. You can what this looked like if you have a copy of Skulls and Scrapefaggot Green by Judges Guild.
Quote from: estar;499425How much do you know about original Dungeons & Dragons? The rules and it's history?
Some of the design questions you bring up have been asked by.others. Some don't have answers some do.
I was just trying to clarify what was under discussion. There were differences between what I saw when I looked at the linked document and what was being described by the OP. Given that the OP is reading the third printing, I assume that explains the differences.
I will not bother with S&W whatsoever...
Another LAME ASS clone with added house rules.
There is better...
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;499457I will not bother with S&W whatsoever...
Another LAME ASS clone with added house rules.
There is better...
And more expensive and a hassle to buy.
Quote from: Ram;499454I was just trying to clarify what was under discussion. There were differences between what I saw when I looked at the linked document and what was being described by the OP. Given that the OP is reading the third printing, I assume that explains the differences.
I apologize, I meant to reply to the original poster.
Quote from: estar;499425How much do you know about original Dungeons & Dragons? The rules and it's history?
Some of the design questions you bring up have been asked by.others. Some don't have answers some do.
One comment I will make now is that Swords & Wizardry (all three versions) is an interpretation of original D&D. Due to way it's written several sections of the rules can be read in different ways. For example, the elves switching between fighter and magic-user. The aggregate effects is that all OD&D campaigns are house ruled. There is no by the book OD&D. Hence, and Matt Finch as stated this, Swords & Wizardry is an interpretation.
Early D&D tournaments often has a page or more of house rules on how that particular event was going to handle D&D. You can what this looked like if you have a copy of Skulls and Scrapefaggot Green by Judges Guild.
I thought you were replying to him, not me.
I started playing 2E around 1995 or so. Prior to that, I bought the box sets for BECMI when I was 11 or 12 and read them to the point of memorization, though never got a game going. A relative also handed me most of the AD&D 1E books, including Oriental Adventures and Unearthed Arcana but missing the DMG, and I read those extensively as well without starting a game. I also played the living crap out of Curse of the Azure Bonds and the other SSI RPGs for Apple II(later on PC CD-ROM). In the past few years, I've had the chance to read photocopies of Brown Box OD&D, but didn't delve too deep because they didn't read very well. That is the extent of my personal experience with older editions. On top of this, I have what I've gleaned from discussions on Old School gaming on Old School blogs(I read about 9 months of Grognardia, and even looked up some of what he referenced, for example) and discussions here and elsewhere.
Quote from: jeff37923;499259Yes, that is obvious here. However I think it is indicative of how scared TCO is that his previous trolling arguements are being undermined.
If everyone is so convinced he's a troll that all they say is "Troll. Nothing to see here, move along." then there's no engagement. If everyone just assumes he's posting in bad faith, no one feeds the troll. So, he'll try to not obviously troll.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;499461I started playing 2E around 1995 or so. Prior to that, I bought the box sets for BECMI when I was 11 or 12 and read them to the point of memorization, though never got a game going. A relative also handed me most of the AD&D 1E books, including Oriental Adventures and Unearthed Arcana but missing the DMG, and I read those extensively as well without starting a game. I also played the living crap out of Curse of the Azure Bonds and the other SSI RPGs for Apple II(later on PC CD-ROM). In the past few years, I've had the chance to read photocopies of Brown Box OD&D, but didn't delve too deep because they didn't read very well. That is the extent of my personal experience with older editions. On top of this, I have what I've gleaned from discussions on Old School gaming on Old School blogs(I read about 9 months of Grognardia, and even looked up some of what he referenced, for example) and discussions here and elsewhere.
So basically you are saying that you have no firstand experience playing old school D&D and all this crap is based strictly off of what you have read.
In that case you can present what you have read but when it comes to drawing any conclusions about the material and how it feels in actual play just please shut yer trap.
Well I'm enjoying the thread, anyway. It's interesting to read about the S&W rules from TCO's perspective. As far as I can see in this thread, TCO is being candid and forthright, and you'd have to have a pretty thin skin to say that he's crapping on the game. Did he make a post (and quite a while ago, too) saying that he likes to argue? Big deal. I suspect most of us are here partly because we enjoy discussion and argument for its own sake. Is he talking about a game on the basis of reading alone? Big deal. Most of the reviews at this site judge games without playing them. TCO, please do not shut your trap. Please continue.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;499700In that case you can present what you have read but when it comes to drawing any conclusions about the material and how it feels in actual play just please shut yer trap.
I don't care if he does, so far many of the questions and points he brings up have been brought by people back in the day.
Of course it is a google search away to find out what been said on stuff like OD&D Elves and switching between Magic-user and Fighter.
I recommend this site as a good initial starting point.
http://www.philotomy.com/
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;499260First of is Clerics, and the first thing I notice is that their Hit Die is 1d6+1, which is mathematically similar to 1d8.
Next up is the Fighting Man. He gets 1d6+2 as his Hit Die(again, mathematically similar to 1d10),
Rounding out things is the Magic User, who gets 1d6-1 HP per level(again, similar to the d4)
Eh? D6+x isn't similar to any of the other die types.
Quote from: Ladybird;499725Eh? D6+x isn't similar to any of the other die types.
By mathematically similar, I think TCO is referring mostly to average result (and to a lesser extent range) rather than the physical dice.
Quote from: Skywalker;499726By mathematically similar, I think TCO is referring mostly to average result (and to a lesser extent range) rather than the physical dice.
Range is the important thing, though, unless you're making a lot of characters. He didn't mention what happens at each level. Is it another die roll or is it a fixed number of hit points gained?
Quote from: Benoist;499257Horseshit, and lame trolling at that.
You are baiting, TCO. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568) You can go fuck yourself.
TCO, ignore this fat troll. He supports the game ONLY because the creator is a member on that elitist site.
In other words, Benoist, follow your own advice...
Quote from: CRKrueger;499667If everyone is so convinced he's a troll that all they say is "Troll. Nothing to see here, move along." then there's no engagement. If everyone just assumes he's posting in bad faith, no one feeds the troll. So, he'll try to not obviously troll.
I for one, CRK, find that a sick form of enjoyment for my degenerated pallete.
Quote from: estar;499723I recommend this site as a good initial starting point.
http://www.philotomy.com/
Amen!
TCO, if you're familiar with TSR-era D&D (by way of AD&D 2e) and dislike it, you'd be well served to read Philotomy's Musings. In my own experience (grounded in BECMIU/RC and 2e, not entirely unlike yourself IIRC), his clear and thoughtful writings do a great job of bridging the gap between our own early gaming experience, and the sensibilities that informed its "old school" roots.
Either way, I feel it might make your reading of S&W more interesting.
Quote from: estar;499723I don't care if he does, so far many of the questions and points he brings up have been brought by people back in the day.
So, because someone else talked about this stuff on another site a year ago, no one is allowed to talk about it on RPGSite now, even if it's the first time they've read through the books?
Quote from: danbuter;499789So, because someone else talked about this stuff on another site a year ago, no one is allowed to talk about it on RPGSite now, even if it's the first time they've read through the books?
Let's break this down
Original post I replied
Quote from: Exploderwizard;499700In that case you can present what you have read but when it comes to drawing any conclusions about the material and how it feels in actual play just please shut yer trap.
So Exploderwizard tells TCO to shut his trap about his conclusions and how it feels in actual play.
And I reply
Quote from: estar;499723I don't care if he does
And Exploderwizard also attacks TCO with
Quote from: Exploderwizard;499700So basically you are saying that you have no firstand experience playing old school D&D and all this crap is based strictly off of what you have read.
And I point out how bogus this is because people who have played OD&D ask the same damn questions and make the same comments.
Quote from: estar;499723I don't care if he does, so far many of the questions and points he brings up have been brought by people back in the day.
Yes by this year, 2012 there been dozens of rounds of debates, discussions and Q&As (some with the original authors) about points TCO brought up. People should go and read them.
And then have their own discussion about it. Particularly in the case of OD&D where there no book answer for various aspects of the game. Only options based on what people used in their own campaigns.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;499732Trolling troll troll.
(http://www.umornegru.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/fuck-you-gen.jpg)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;499700So basically you are saying that you have no firstand experience playing old school D&D and all this crap is based strictly off of what you have read.
In that case you can present what you have read but when it comes to drawing any conclusions about the material and how it feels in actual play just please shut yer trap.
Pretty fucking stupid response, especially given that from what I'm seeing thus far (p.3) he's been doing a fair and honest report on this game.
Seriously, I'm no 4e fan but this kind of shit is what pisses me off about the OSR. "We just want you to give old school games a look".
"Ok, I will.. hmm, this is interesting but very different from the D&D I'm used to"
"Shut the fuck up!! You can't know unless you played the game in 1974!!!"
Fuck's sake.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;499931"Shut the fuck up!! You can't know unless you played the game in 1974!!!"
Fuck's sake.
RPGPundit
Hell no. He could have played it for the first time last week for all I care.
Reading a rulebook when all you have experince playing are systems where the rules try to represent the lions share of the game won't grant much insight.
Quote from: RPGPundit;499931Pretty fucking stupid response, especially given that from what I'm seeing thus far (p.3) he's been doing a fair and honest report on this game.
Seriously, I'm no 4e fan but this kind of shit is what pisses me off about the OSR. "We just want you to give old school games a look".
"Ok, I will.. hmm, this is interesting but very different from the D&D I'm used to"
"Shut the fuck up!! You can't know unless you played the game in 1974!!!"
Fuck's sake.
RPGPundit
HA HA HA well said...
Quote from: RPGPundit;499931Pretty fucking stupid response, especially given that from what I'm seeing thus far (p.3) he's been doing a fair and honest report on this game.
Seriously, I'm no 4e fan but this kind of shit is what pisses me off about the OSR. "We just want you to give old school games a look".
"Ok, I will.. hmm, this is interesting but very different from the D&D I'm used to"
"Shut the fuck up!! You can't know unless you played the game in 1974!!!"
Fuck's sake.
RPGPundit
Here's a thing, though, Pundit...the guy has said "I'm here to shitpost, to troll, and if I don't catch someone the first time around I'll step up my game." Benoist links to the post where tco says this in just about every reply. So...telling tco he's shitposting and to STFU is pretty much accurate in this case.
Quote from: RPGPundit;499931Fuck's sake.
RPGPundit
The part you're missing is that TCO never ever posts in good faith. He's a shit-stirrer, has always been, for years now. You might decide like others to give him a chance etc etc. That's fine by me. You are going to be disappointed. Sooner or later.
I'm an asshole, but I like to think that I'm a fair asshole. Despite my prejudiced, opinionated nature, I strive for impartiality. TCO is, in my mind, an idiot. Not that he is stupid--quite the opposite I suspect--but that he is a stubborn mule of individual with battered woman syndrome toward WotC's unethical corporate practices. In fact, I suspect that if Mike Mearls personally knocked him down and dumped in his mouth, TCO would beam with pride through a warm mouthful.
However. Though I might find TCO irritating, naive, willfully ignorant, and irrational, I do not believe he is trolling. He says he loves to argue, but that is not the same as trolling. Darwin? He's a troll. A shit-slinger whose main arguments are insults and mockery. TCO, on the other hand, seems to be willing to engage people in actual debate and argue in good faith.
I don't care what anyone else on this site actually thinks about anything. All I care about is what they say, and how their posts affect my thinking and my own arguments.
So, post in bad faith all you want, as far as I'm concerned. Just be interesting.
Quote from: Benoist;500075The part you're missing is that TCO never ever posts in good faith. He's a shit-stirrer, has always been, for years now. You might decide like others to give him a chance etc etc. That's fine by me. You are going to be disappointed. Sooner or later.
Its quite possible he is a shit-stirrer. I have yet to see him doing any shit-stirring in this thread. It seems to me he's making an honest assessment of his experience looking at S&W. I've yet to see any undue criticism.
RPGPundit
Didn't someone get banned last year for stalking Koltar? Benoist is doing the same damn thing.
Ben, you should lighten up. If TCO pisses you off so much, put him on IL and don't post in his threads.
Quote from: danbuter;500110Didn't someone get banned last year for stalking Koltar? Benoist is doing the same damn thing.
Ben, you should lighten up. If TCO pisses you off so much, put him on IL and don't post in his threads.
Come on, we all know that fat bald headed trolls prefer to keep trolling. Poor Benoist, find anymore goats to eat???
Quote from: danbuter;500110Didn't someone get banned last year for stalking Koltar? Benoist is doing the same damn thing.
Ben, you should lighten up. If TCO pisses you off so much, put him on IL and don't post in his threads.
I'd like to not see it as stalking, at least not yet. But you know, benoist, dan might have a point here, about the IL... if you're really going to dismiss everything this guy says from now on, that might be a better option than following him around on threads to jump in and call him on things that didn't actually happen in that thread. Because that is kind of part of the definition we use for "stalker" around here.
RPGPundit