Quote from: Mr. GC;591922What actually happens then is you play a weak character, don't make it relevant... so it isn't relevant. And the result is the same as if you tried to make it relevant and are shut down - constant death, constant being hard countered by easy encounters and scenarios, etc.

What actually happens is even if the DM tries to play easy D&D, if he's playing D&D at all they die anyways. They just die to something like derpy Fireball spam, and not "Suddenly, an formerly invisible flying Sorcerer appears, save vs Wings of Flurry."

You can't play down to them because there's nothing on their level.

If these sentiments are approaching anywhere near typical, then I weep for the hobby.

In game being played by mature human beings, relevance is measured by the choices of the players during actual play rather than measuring the metaphorical dicks on the character sheet. I didn't have much problem getting that concept at age 12 so what's your excuse?

Quote from: Mr. GC;591922Because the point that "Even with a basket weaver DM, basket weaver players must still continually justify their existence." is different from "Basket weavers are terrible gamers and people, this is why." Because the general basket weaver thread was operating under the assumption it's fine when everyone weaves baskets. Now that I think about it, it's not.

Because... as the Pope of Fun you have the right to issue a Fatwa saying that this is badwrongfun?

Quote from: Mr. GC;591922What actually happens then is you play a weak character, don't make it relevant... so it isn't relevant. And the result is the same as if you tried to make it relevant and are shut down - constant death, constant being hard countered by easy encounters and scenarios, etc.

What actually happens is even if the DM tries to play easy D&D, if he's playing D&D at all they die anyways. They just die to something like derpy Fireball spam, and not "Suddenly, an formerly invisible flying Sorcerer appears, save vs Wings of Flurry."

You can't play down to them because there's nothing on their level.

You seem to be assuming that (1) the game revolves around nothing but combat and (2) if you don't set combats according to the abysmal notion of CR guidelines from D&D 3.5 DMG, you're somehow "not playing D&D".

Maybe you don't set "level-appropriate" encounters. Maybe you don't optimise use of tactics. Or, shock - horror, maybe there's more to the game than an endless series of fights!

Quote from: Mr. GC;591900I have laid out a challenge, with terms already.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24282

I actually thought you had posted there several times already but you actually haven't posted there at all.

I don't think it can be done. The weak classes lack too many critical things required to play D&D on any level and a group of all Rogues is about as low as it gets. Good classes can handle this scenario easily, but the bad ones just can't.

You are welcome to try and prove me wrong, but you will fail.

Well, for starters, it should be a module.  Yes you can create, on the fly with full knowledge of the characters, a situation that would kill them.  But I can do likewise with your best characters, too.

Any GM deliberately trying to kill a pary will do so, period.

But modules are specifically designed to be accessible.

Also your standard of 'thou shalt not rest' is implausible as well.  Parties do that all the time.

Finally, you can't be expected to run it impartially.  You'd have to select someone else, I'd think.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591906Or the things with a sneak attack counter, which is around half (assuming you can even get them in a sneak attackable state).

Flanking, right?  Two rogues is sneak-attack heaven in a non-facing combat system like 3e.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;591928Forget it fellas.  That's not even how darkvision or low light vision works (you still need to make a perception check).  Just like it's been in pretty much every edition.  How can you expect him to put forth a valid argument when he doesn't even know the rules to his own preferred edition?

To be fair to him, the modifier to the perception check would surely be very different if you have darkvision and the rogue was relying on the shadows as something to hide in. But if the rogue could hide from you in daylight, he can still hide from you in darkness, even if you can see in darkness.

Quote from: Omnifray;591936To be fair to him, the modifier to the perception check would surely be very different if you have darkvision and the rogue was relying on the shadows as something to hide in. But if the rogue could hide from you in daylight, he can still hide from you in darkness, even if you can see in darkness.

Yeah, this.  The rules don't have that level of detail.

Quote from: mcbobbo;591935Flanking, right?  Two rogues is sneak-attack heaven in a non-facing combat system like 3e.

Wolf-pack tactics.

While your mate attacks from behind, you fight defensively from in front, and vice versa.

We do that all the time in foam-sword LARP just instinctively. It just happens in the fight without even really thinking about it. I know foam-sword LARP isn't a great simulation of real combat, but it's a reasonable simulation of tabletop RPG combat...

Quote from: StormBringer;591927I guess when ignorance is all you have, it's the only thing you can appeal to.  So you go back to that well again, and again, and again.  To quote Sir Warwick Harrow from the Firefly episode Shindig, "He thinks he's doing well, doesn't he?"

My advice to GC would be this:-

Consider this question, young padawan.

Are you here to convince yourself of the superiority of your own analytical ability and system-mastery, or are you here to persuade other people of your point of view?

If the former, only you can be the judge of your success.

If the latter, how do you think you're doing measured in practical results of actually convincing people that you are somehow "right"?

If, as I suspect, the truth is that you're trying and failing to persuade people, how can you modify your arguments and presentation of them to try to win people round?

It's not generally a good debating tactic to start by telling the audience that they're completely stupid. Whilst it's fine when you're talking to someone like me, because I'll just ignore that part and skip to the flawed premises on which your substantive arguments are based, for people who are less megalomaniacal than I am, it might actually bother them that you're talking down to them like you're the King of France and they're a bunch of peasants.

Far better to strive a lot harder to try to see the merits in your opponents' position before you then try to point out their flaws.

Otherwise you just come across like, well, Sheldon off The Big Bang Theory, minus the 187 IQ.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591920Hey look, it's a clown mindlessly copying the Den and yet will later bitch about mindlessly copying the Den, who has no points to call his own, and yet continues making useless posts... Going on OVER 9,000 useless posts.

It's so adorable when you are backed into a corner and lose your shit.  Which is always.  You must realize by now that it's only because your reactions are so utterly predictable that anyone replies to you at all, right?  Anyone else around here could re-consider their argument and possibly modify their position, so we keep each other on our toes.  Every single time there is even the most moderate of challenges, you can be counted on to turtle up and double down on some bizarre inability to grasp the basic tenets of reality, dodging the issue like your beloved basketweavers.  I am sure it is the same out in the real world, but you are the laughingstock everywhere you go online, and here is no different.  

QuoteYup, it's Stormbringer, and he is as irrelevant as ever. Now go away Stormbringer, meaningful people are speaking.

You can't possibly recognize 'meaningful'.

Quote from: Omnifray;591924I expressly stated that my views were from a generic, not 3.5-specific, perspective.

Also, you seem to be assuming that for the most part the party of rogues will be tracking/assassinating non-human opponents with extensive supernatural racial abilities, e.g. undead. Whilst that may be a reasonable assumption for D&D of any edition, it's not the sort of game I have in mind.

It doesn't take undead. Those are immune to SA sure, but even things that are technically vulnerable to it can wreck their face.

Quote from: mcbobbo;591935Flanking, right?  Two rogues is sneak-attack heaven in a non-facing combat system like 3e.

Wrong. I'll give you a hint: The problem is another combat rule.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;591928Forget it fellas.  That's not even how darkvision or low light vision works (you still need to make a perception check).  Just like it's been in pretty much every edition.  How can you expect him to put forth a valid argument when he doesn't even know the rules to his own preferred edition?

Wrong. What actually happens is you need either cover or concealment or you cannot hide. Concealment comes from things like shadows. Anything with darkvision or low light vision, there are no shadows.

So what actually happens is that the exact instant you move from one tree to another, or cross an open door way, or anything that takes you out of cover for even a second, instant and automatic detection.

Quote from: mcbobbo;591934Well, for starters, it should be a module.  Yes you can create, on the fly with full knowledge of the characters, a situation that would kill them.  But I can do likewise with your best characters, too.

The scenario I presented to you is prewritten, months in advance. Yes it will slaughter Rogues, and other gimps, but it isn't specifically designed to do so and is in fact very, very easy.

The scenario I presented to the other guy? Prewritten enemy, designed months in advance.

QuoteAny GM deliberately trying to kill a pary will do so, period.

But modules are specifically designed to be accessible.

Also your standard of 'thou shalt not rest' is implausible as well.  Parties do that all the time.

Finally, you can't be expected to run it impartially.  You'd have to select someone else, I'd think.

The goal is to model a standard adventuring day. If you cannot handle a day's worth of adventure in a day, that's just as much of a failure as if the entire party dies. If the first encounter totally exhausts the party, and there's still three left, that's still a total defeat.

Modules you can just metagame the fuck out of, so yeah. No.

Quote from: Omnifray;591938Wolf-pack tactics.

While your mate attacks from behind, you fight defensively from in front, and vice versa.

We do that all the time in foam-sword LARP just instinctively. It just happens in the fight without even really thinking about it. I know foam-sword LARP isn't a great simulation of real combat, but it's a reasonable simulation of tabletop RPG combat...

Another post that shows a lack of understanding of the combat rules. Lol at the notion Rogues aren't in auto hit territory or close.

Quote from: Omnifray;591943My advice to GC would be this:-

Consider this question, young padawan.

Are you here to convince yourself of the superiority of your own analytical ability and system-mastery, or are you here to persuade other people of your point of view?

I am here to speak to the good players as though they are people and the rest? Well, who cares?

So how about it? 4 level 10 Rogues vs single encounter, I laugh as they get slaughtered and you try and prevent this from happening. Deal, or no deal?

It doesn't matter how common combats are. They have a frequency greater than 0, and are "Win me or stop playing this game."

And then either you can or cannot continue playing the game.

You can't play pretend in that tavern forever. You'll have to go out and adventure eventually. And when you do... they'll be waiting... watching... hungering for gimps.

People, just stop.  The circus stopped being entertainment a while ago.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591903So while you might not have to directly worry about getting slaughtered because you're not playing D&D in the first place, you do have to worry about a different set of problems. Problems such as justifying why your 5th level character is now trying to take a third class, or why you need all these feats, or these items, or all this stuff from all these different books. And if at any point you are unable to do so - if you're told no at any point, the result is the same as if your character is mechanically incompetent - they're forced out of the game, killed, whatever... and the result of being told no is that you are directly made mechanically incompetent! In other words the same problem comes up in more ways!

Conversely, if you play a good character, it's not like that at all. Instead of the game being defined by what you cannot do, it is defined by what you can do. Instead of having to constantly struggle with the DM, other players, and your opponents in game, you can just play the fucking game and enjoy it.

If I assume you're being intellectually honest, then we agree.  Trap options lead to characters that are more difficult to play, and require adaptation from the others around the table.

Unfortunately, I think your definition of 'good character' isn't defined.

Also, I'd point out that the issues you seem to have are with the system you're choosing to play, rather than roleplaying games in general.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591946Wrong. What actually happens is you need either cover or concealment or you cannot hide. Concealment comes from things like shadows. Anything with darkvision or low light vision, there are no shadows.

So what actually happens is that the exact instant you move from one tree to another, or cross an open door way, or anything that takes you out of cover for even a second, instant and automatic detection.

That's moronic. In an actual forest an actual person can sneak from tree to tree, traversing clear ground in the process. You just have to be careful about it and sure, it's not foolproof.

No sensible GM would interpret the rules the way you do. Cover is still cover even if you slip from one bit of it to the next and maybe even leave it momentarily. You don't have to be 100% concealed. You just have to know how to be subtle and take advantage of such cover as there is.

In LARP I have snuck up on people across open ground in broad daylight. You wait until they face somewhat in a different direction, are distracted or whatever, then you make a dash for it. It works.

Or, please point me to the passage of the rules of ANY edition of D&D where it specifically says that breaking cover [edit:-] no, I mean, moving from tree to tree or from one bit of cover to the next, even for a split second, results in automatic detection.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591946Another post that shows a lack of understanding of the combat rules. Lol at the notion Rogues aren't in auto hit territory or close.

My reference to wolf-pack tactics wasn't D&D-specific, but FWIW, a rogue with high dexterity, magic armour, amulet of natural AC, etc. etc., can be in a half-way decent AC, and they can have enough HP to take a few blows, depending on the enemy. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to fight defensively from the front while their mate sneak-attacks from the rear. Obviously if they end up having to run away, in 3.5 they face attacks of opportunity, which by the way is the most moronic rule of all the moronic rules of D&D 3.5, so if you're sending them up against uber-powerful enemies, they're dogmeat, the same as a wizard. But even so, attacks of opportunity are IIRC limited to 1/round per opportunity-attacker.

[Edited to add:- I remember a game of D&D 3.5 where my sorcerer actually had better AC than the party fighter and if a sorcerer can do it, it's very doable for a rogue.]

Quote from: Mr. GC;591946So how about it? 4 level 10 Rogues vs single encounter, I laugh as they get slaughtered and you try and prevent this from happening. Deal, or no deal?

D&D 3.5 combat is an unpleasant grindfest which I happen to find rather tedious so, for that reason, no deal, thanks. And I don't doubt that if you try hard enough you can find some supposedly level-appropriate encounter that simply wipes them out as a statistical near-certainty.

But please feel free to show your workings out.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591947It doesn't matter how common combats are. They have a frequency greater than 0, and are "Win me or stop playing this game."

And then either you can or cannot continue playing the game.

You can't play pretend in that tavern forever. You'll have to go out and adventure eventually. And when you do... they'll be waiting... watching... hungering for gimps.

Your concept of an RPG is narrower than a slice of toast stuck between two boulders that are being squeezed together with a force of two million megatonnes per square inch.

Combat does not have to occur in order for there to be "adventure". There can be investigation. There can be sneaking, spying and magic. Combat can be avoided if you can hide, run away from it or parlay.

Combat does not have to be against "level-appropriate" enemies.

Combat, when it occurs, does not have to result in death.

You might parlay, negotiate, surrender, run away or be knocked out or otherwise subdued and captured.

Even if you're killed, you may be raised from the dead, even by your enemy.

You do not have to be able to win ANY combat to be an adventurer.

You certainly don't have to be able to win an arbitrarily-defined "level-appropriate" combat.

And finally, even in a combat-heavy game, you can play a non-combat character who contributes to the group's success in other ways.

Your posts continually make me wonder whether you have ever actually played RPGs outside the very narrow circle of you and 3 people you taught to play RPGs without anyone teaching you first.