Quote from: Omnifray;591956That'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 the real world, perhaps. In the D&D world if you are in a room, with your back turned to the door and someone moves past that door and is the best ninja ever... Instant and automatic detection.

Rogues are even less capable of sneaking around than normal people with no training in the real world.

QuoteIn 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.

Except we're talking about D&D, so no one cares.

QuoteOr, 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.

You must have cover or concealment to hide. The precise instant you move from behind a tree, you no longer have cover. Instant and automatic detection.

QuoteMy 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.

Wrong. No non casting characters have relevant AC in RAW D&D, and Rogues are among the worst in any case. They also easily die to one full attack from anything... and if you read the combat rules, you'd know that means combat goes like this:

Rogue 1 moves into melee range of enemy, attacks once. Since it's a single attack, it does no damage worth mentioning even if it were a SA hit, which it isn't.
Rogue 2 moves around the other side, let's say he doesn't get AoOed, attacks once. He does get SA, but it's still a single attack, so it still does no damage worth mentioning.

Enemy full attacks, at least one Rogue dies.

Also, the enemy can attack whoever it wants, so even if one had relevant AC and one didn't, it can go eat the threat and ignore the other guy until after.

A Wizard, meanwhile has the same or more HP, and defenses that actually work, and doesn't have to go into melee range to do anything. He can survive and thrive, and also actually do something.

Quote[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.]

Casters can get relevant AC, but since they can get better defenses there's no reason to bother.

QuoteD&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.

Right, so unwilling to back up your claims, not willing to stop making them. Got it. Standard basket weaver. By the way, I just selected one enemy within the given level range at random. I'd have to really, really look to find an encounter that doesn't hard counter Rogues just by existing because that list is literally:

Human NPCs with no ability to see in the dark.
Halfling NPCs with no ability to see in the dark.

Any human/halfling who can cast low level spells such as Darkvision or Low Light vision, even from potions, and anything else can easily hard counter Rogues. The list of abilities where having even one = lol Rogues is fucking massive.

Housecats hard counter Rogues.

That being said, it wouldn't be especially tedious... just some gimps being shut down and taken out in short order. If you want someone else to run the Rogues, fine. But if you're not willing to prove it at all, then step on out.

Quote from: Omnifray;591957Your 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.

So in other words, all things you either succeed or fail at and must therefore justify your performance.

Also, you can't hide and can't run, so have fun fighting.

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

Sure, basket weavers can go farm rats while the actual adventurers go adventure. I think when people show up to play D&D, they aren't looking for an MMO grindfest.

QuoteCombat, 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.

Right, instead of dying, you could suffer a fate worse than death. In what way does this help you? In both cases, you must delete and reroll, just this way wastes more of your time.

Also, level loss.

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

And after the second loss, people stop wasting diamond dust on your gimp ass and tell you to make a character that can actually play D&D.

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

At which point you are evicted by party vote or death.

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

Except that you can't, because this is D&D, and not pretend. This means that you need to help in battle, and having something to do besides fight? Yeah, also a good idea. But a non combatant is just that - someone to leave at home.

QuoteYour 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.

My posts stem from the fact that most tabletop gamers are terrible, I've had plenty of direct experiences to this effect, and the only way of getting quality gaming is with either extremely lucky finds, or people that I have directly or indirectly taught how to play the game. Even the so called optimizers simply are not capable of grasping advanced concepts in the vast majority of cases, so they simply are not on my level.

Quote from: Omnifray;591957Your 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.



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.

Whether or not GC has, his reply will probably be 'playing real D&D' ala 'true Scotsman'.

I think the reason falls back to Monte's Ivory Tower confession - they designed 'rules mastery' in to the game to provide some kind of dopamine release for a certain kind of gamer.  Unfortunately, the 'outside-of-combat' ways for this to manifest are pretty rare, and certainly inconsistant.

Ergo the emphasis on combat.

That being said, though, combat does happen.  And the players and GM should always been on the same page about how often it will occur and whether or not any punches will be pulled.  

THAT being said, though, the number instances where a player wanders from table to table finding jarringly different styles of play is amazingly small on anywhere but an internet forum.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591946The 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.

What scenario did you present to me, exactly?

And who wrote it?

Was it published or home-brew?

Quote from: mcbobbo;591965Whether or not GC has, his reply will probably be 'playing real D&D' ala 'true Scotsman'.

I think the reason falls back to Monte's Ivory Tower confession - they designed 'rules mastery' in to the game to provide some kind of dopamine release for a certain kind of gamer.  Unfortunately, the 'outside-of-combat' ways for this to manifest are pretty rare, and certainly inconsistant.

Ergo the emphasis on combat.

That being said, though, combat does happen.  And the players and GM should always been on the same page about how often it will occur and whether or not any punches will be pulled.  

THAT being said, though, the number instances where a player wanders from table to table finding jarringly different styles of play is amazingly small on anywhere but an internet forum.

Actually, the Ivory Tower thing? It was just them trying to play off their mistake as if it was intentional. They probably really did think Toughness was good, etc, and totally fucked that up.

Now here's what I'd like for you to understand. All tabletop game writers fuck up in this way, just the others tend to either ignore it or dismiss it instead of playing it off as a feature and not a bug.

Quote from: mcbobbo;591968What scenario did you present to me, exactly?

And who wrote it?

Was it published or home-brew?

The one I linked you to.

Not me.

It is a short adventure for level 7 characters, not a module though.

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

Here it is again, though if you do it, I think I'll make a different thread for that so that That Guy doesn't get confused.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591960In the real world, perhaps. In the D&D world if you are in a room, with your back turned to the door and someone moves past that door and is the best ninja ever... Instant and automatic detection.

Rogues are even less capable of sneaking around than normal people with no training in the real world.

In the real world, if those were actually the rules (which they're not), why would ANYONE EVER want to play such a stupid game?

Quote from: Mr. GC;591960Wrong. No non casting characters have relevant AC in RAW D&D, and Rogues are among the worst in any case.

Huh? No NON-casting characters have relevant AC? I think you mean no non-combat characters, but whatever. All you need is some magic armour, a ring of protection, an amulet of natural AC and +1 Dex Modifier, and you can get AC in the mid to high 20s quite easily. I have played a sorcerer with an AC in the high 20s without even wearing armour. Can't remember how I did it but by the same method the fighter could probably have managed low 30s. And this was like a 7th level character or something.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591960Enemy full attacks, at least one Rogue dies.

I agree that the rules on single attacks versus full attacks are rubbish.

Now about those attacks of opportunity. When the enemy attacks rogue 2, does rogue 1 get an attack of opportunity? I can't remember the answer to that RAW.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591960Also, the enemy can attack whoever it wants, so even if one had relevant AC and one didn't, it can go eat the threat and ignore the other guy until after.

Actually the better tactic is to take out the guy with the worst AC first, as he will go down quicker, thus reducing the damage you're taking - assuming that he is doing similar damage to the guy with the better AC.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591960A Wizard, meanwhile has the same or more HP, and defenses that actually work, and doesn't have to go into melee range to do anything. He can survive and thrive, and also actually do something.

In D&D 3.5, admittedly very badly DM'd, I've seen a constant problem of invisible flying assassins sneaking up on the party wizard or sorcerer. Unless you happen to have see invisibility and some kind of improved movement both running at the same time for some obscure reason (when you've had no prior indication of the assassin's presence), as a wizard you're just screwed.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591960Right, so unwilling to back up your claims, not willing to stop making them. Got it. Standard basket weaver. By the way, I just selected one enemy within the given level range at random. I'd have to really, really look to find an encounter that doesn't hard counter Rogues just by existing because that list is literally:

Human NPCs with no ability to see in the dark.
Halfling NPCs with no ability to see in the dark.

Any human/halfling who can cast low level spells such as Darkvision or Low Light vision, even from potions, and anything else can easily hard counter Rogues. The list of abilities where having even one = lol Rogues is fucking massive.

Housecats hard counter Rogues.

That being said, it wouldn't be especially tedious... just some gimps being shut down and taken out in short order. If you want someone else to run the Rogues, fine. But if you're not willing to prove it at all, then step on out.

Your whole argument is based on the shocking premise that moving from tree to tree results in automatic detection by anything that can see through shadows.

My conclusion, based on your belief in that premise, is that you are possibly the worst DM I have ever encountered, and that's really saying something.

Why don't you just take it on faith that I don't have any interest in mechanically running through a 3.5 grindfest.

Please, feel free to do it for us on this thread and show us what you think happens. I will trust you to do what you think is tactically the best option for the rogues.

However, I think I've said all I can be bothered to say on this thread as really, my patience for your constant insistence on nonsense is wearing thin.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591970The one I linked you to.

Not me.

It is a short adventure for level 7 characters, not a module though.

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

Here it is again, though if you do it, I think I'll make a different thread for that so that That Guy doesn't get confused.

There's no scenario in that thread.

Who wrote it?

And was it published?

Quote from: Mr. GC;591969Now here's what I'd like for you to understand. All tabletop game writers fuck up in this way, just the others tend to either ignore it or dismiss it instead of playing it off as a feature and not a bug.

Write your own game then and prove you can do it better.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591969Actually, the Ivory Tower thing? It was just them trying to play off their mistake as if it was intentional. They probably really did think Toughness was good, etc, and totally fucked that up.

That's a fine opinion.  How do you back it up?

Quote from: Mr. GC;591969Now here's what I'd like for you to understand. All tabletop game writers fuck up in this way, just the others tend to either ignore it or dismiss it instead of playing it off as a feature and not a bug.

Well, you're going to have to clearly define 'this way' first.  So let's start there.  Define it as though explaining it to a three year old.  No shortcuts, no hyperbole, if you please.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;591975Write your own game then and prove you can do it better.

OMG no, you went and said it.

Now he probably will, and it will be some kind of mutant three-headed Beelzebub of a game, worse than FATAL and more pretentious than anything that any of Ron Edwards' most committed followers ever dreamt up.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591964And after the second loss, people stop wasting diamond dust on your gimp ass and tell you to make a character that can actually play D&D.

Here is the root cause of your confusion. Characters are not the ones playing D&D, the players are.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591964Except that you can't, because this is D&D, and not pretend.

I have no response to this except a question:

How long ago did they let you out?

Quote from: Omnifray;591977OMG no, you went and said it.

Now he probably will, and it will be some kind of mutant three-headed Beelzebub of a game, worse than FATAL and more pretentious than anything that any of Ron Edwards' most committed followers ever dreamt up.

It will fail because he comes into the whole thing saying "most gamers are idiots" essentially. He can complain about guys like cook all he wants, but they at least respect and understand their customer base. Instead, GC says "no, you are not getting it, you are doing it wrong. What you enjoy isnt fun. You like poorly designed games". That approach is always going to fail I think.

Quote from: Mr. GC;591964...
My posts stem from the fact that most tabletop gamers are terrible, I've had plenty of direct experiences to this effect, and the only way of getting quality gaming is with either extremely lucky finds, or people that I have directly or indirectly taught how to play the game. Even the so called optimizers simply are not capable of grasping advanced concepts in the vast majority of cases, so they simply are not on my level.

Based on the fact that you are unwilling to let common sense inform your interpretation of the rules, I would say that your assertion lacks credibility.

I would also say that you show no evidence whatsoever of being the God of gaming you imagine yourself to be.

I would also say that the quality of gaming is not measured by tactical brilliance. There is so, SO much more to gaming than tactics, challenge and "winning". Please. Try. Some. Other. Style. Of. Gaming.

God help us all if you succeed in "teaching" people as you seem to intend.

Everyone here is making a whole bunch of assumptions.  I think the OPs post is really about aligning of play styles.

If I'm playing a bloody handed grizzled warrior in a campaign that revolves around how arts and crafts can win PCs money and prestige in gallery showings, and where success in the narrative is determined by being able to weave baskets, then basket weavers are the uber, maximised characters for the setting, while killfuck soulshitter just sits around or worse is punished for using his abilities by the setting.

It's really about control of the narrative.  I think what the OP is saying is that he finds PCs whose abilities aren't at least somewhat optimised to deal with the setting and pull their weight are frustrating for him to deal with. When players come in with character builds that are at odds with the majority of the game's action, what they're saying is, "I want at least some of the game's action to be about this."  This happens all the time in games like Star Wars with PCs who are optimized to be pilots in games that are heavily ground based.  While pilots are iconic figures in space games, often pilots get sidelined by other types of PCs who also want to get in their action (engineers, diplomats, ground soldiers). One way of dealing with this is to make the entry costs of being a pilot low and having everyone be a pilot while also being good at something else. Mekton Zeta does this quite well, with most PCs being dangerous in mecha and PCs who hyper focus on piloting being aces while other PCs have their own side things.  Further, in Mekton, the gap between the abilities of aces and regular PC pilots isn't as huge as it might be in other games.

So, one way of approaching basket weaves might be to say, "Hey look, we're cool if you want to basket weave. But you need to be able to hang with the group in combat."  This kind of compromise says, -we're cool if some of the spotlight is on your basket weaving, but we're here for action, so you have to engage with us on that as well-.

I think the complaint about basket weaving is really about how people tug back and forth on the play action.