Well, this thread has one positive outcome.  I'm now inspired to create a Thieves Challenge module, similar to the old 2e ones.  Except this will be a bit longer, with the focus on a party of thieves.  I think I'll use the Vorovskoy Mir as inspiration, having both an urban plot and a rural plot.

Quote from: Omnifray;591981Based 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.

It's all about communicating gaming style.  It's really important when checking out a group or considering joining a game to ask, 'what is this game about?' No gaming style is "terrible" in terms of content, but gamers can be terrible in execution and in how they treat each other.  If a game is too dialog and story focussed, then move on.  It's incumbent on us as gamers to know what we're getting into, and finding the games we like. Also, if play styles aren't matching what you like, it might help to be less demanding and restrictive, and try something new. But, as Old Geezer at RPGNet says, no gaming is better than bad gaming.  No one is under an obligation to play what isn't fun, and if it doesn't look like you'd dig it, then move on.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;591990Well, this thread has one positive outcome.  I'm now inspired to create a Thieves Challenge module, similar to the old 2e ones.  Except this will be a bit longer, with the focus on a party of thieves.  I think I'll use the Vorovskoy Mir as inspiration, having both an urban plot and a rural plot.

Rock! That's terrific.  Don't hate, create!  Creating cool content is the best answer to the bitching and bile that permeates message boards.  Please, keep us updated!

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;591992No gaming style is "terrible" in terms of content,

That's kind of the point I was making. GC was accusing gamers generally of being terrible because they don't play his way. I was saying - try other stuff. The point being, that way maybe he can gain a broader perspective on how different types of game appeal to different people.

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.

Hey, do they have fun playing games their way?  Are they forcing other folks at gun point to game their way?

I'm all about the proof in the pudding.  If it's fun, who cares? Pretentious un fun games can be thrown in the trash.  Pretentious and fun games can be played and enjoyed.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;591998Hey, do they have fun playing games their way?  Are they forcing other folks at gun point to game their way?

I'm all about the proof in the pudding.  If it's fun, who cares? Pretentious un fun games can be thrown in the trash.  Pretentious and fun games can be played and enjoyed.

I was, of course, taking the mick.

But yes, he will spread his gaming style, and with it his narrow ideology of what gaming is. And this is not a joyful prospect. As he will "teach" people that it is the only way to do it, and what he will be teaching them, under the guise of RPGing, will be wargaming.

Quote from: mcbobbo;591974There's no scenario in that thread.

Who wrote it?

And was it published?

Kaiu's definition of 'basket weaver' -

A PC whose abilities and play style is directly at odds with the assumed narrative and play style as presented by the GM and generally agreed upon by the players.  The action that the PC is capable of directly clashes with the expected action and parameters for success that is assumed by the campaign normally.

Quote from: Omnifray;592002I was, of course, taking the mick.

But yes, he will spread his gaming style, and with it his narrow ideology of what gaming is. And this is not a joyful prospect. As he will "teach" people that it is the only way to do it, and what he will be teaching them, under the guise of RPGing, will be wargaming.

My reply - don't hate, create.

Make games and game stuff that presents your vision for fun.  See, I think that this whole old school versus storygame nonsense is a bunch of nerd dick waving and stomping of feet.  The free market of ideas is the best crucible for increasing player pools.  Want people to play more old school?  Want to prove that OSR (or whatever style you prefer) is superior?  Then put your money where your mouth is. Instead of tearing down styles you don't like, prove how awesome yours is.  Create modules, new RPGs, supplements, run games through various venues, share.  Don't create, hate! The best way to defeat the swine conspiracy is to have fun and share in it, not to talk like some schmack /b/tard and bitch how things aren't going your way.

Also, the styles aren't exclusive.  My local gaming scene very much digs both MHRPG (very storygamey) and the 40K games (which many WoD kids have gone into with gusto).  It's like fans of baseball screeching their should be less soccer.  It's not bad for folks to like both things.  It's not like there's a limited pool of people who can game - new gamers are created by teaching. In my local gaming scene, people play both and have fun.  Fun is what we want more of, right?  If you're not in the hobby to have fun, then I don't know what to say.  Game, make shit, do it.  Don't just stand around and bitch!

So, teach back.  Create.  Advocate the gaming you want to see more of.  Don't drag down, ratchet up your own awesome, step up your game.

Quote from: mcbobbo;591955If I assume you're being intellectually honest, then we agree.

If you assume that, you're a fucking moron.

Quote from: CRKrueger;592019If you assume that, you're a fucking moron.

Yeah, but I'm trying to meet him in the middle.  I'm seeing some promise.

Quote from: mcbobbo;592023Yeah, but I'm trying to meet him in the middle.  I'm seeing some promise.

When someone says D&D is not pretend there is no promise, only the hope that someone can intervene before something terrible happens.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;592024When someone says D&D is not pretend there is no promise, only the hope that someone can intervene before something terrible happens.

Indeed, magic tea party leads to but one place:


 

QuoteAnd so... we played the game again... for one last time. It didn't matter that there were no maps... or dice... or monsters. Pardue saw the monsters. We did not. We saw nothing but the death of hope. And the loss of our friend. And so we played the game until the sun began to set... and all the monsters were dead.

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.

Not true.


Move between Cover: If you're already hiding thanks to cover or  concealment, and you have at least 5 ranks in Hide, you can make a Hide check (with a penalty) to try to move across an area that doesn't offer cover or concealment without revealing yourself. For every 5 ranks in Hide you possess, you can move up to 5 feet between one hiding place and another. For every 5 feet of open space you must cross between hiding places, you take a –5 penalty on your Hide check. Movement speed penalizes the check as normal.

LOW-LIGHT VISION
Creatures that have low-light vision can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision allows a creature that can read to do so with even the tiniest source of light. Those that have low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as a human can during the day. Superior low-light vision allows a creature to see even farther in conditions of shadowy illumination, usually four times as far as normal.

DARKVISION
Darkvision is the ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. A creature using darkvision can't discern colors. The presence of light doesn't spoil darkvision.
Darkvision doesn't allow creatures to see anything that they couldn't see otherwise. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally.

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!

I think you've more than made your only salient point, which is that D&D 3.5 is really an awful game (I didn't get just how bad until you started writing about it), that creates a really terrible experience if you run it as anything other than a miniatures skirsmish game, and a boring one if you do.  Particularly, if the people running or playing it in your group are insane, and have no actual conception of Emulation of World!

That said, I don't think there's any further point in keeping this thread open.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Omnifray;591972In the real world, if those were actually the rules (which they're not), why would ANYONE EVER want to play such a stupid game?

Those are the rules, and you'd play it as long as you didn't have a stealth fetish. If you did... well are there any games where Rogues/Thieves do not suck?

QuoteHuh? 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.

No, I mean non casting characters. Good job showing how you can burn a ton of resources just to get not enough AC to make a difference.

A 7th level Fighter would be lucky to run mid 20s... which gets him hit on... about a 5. So yeah, nothing stopping the enemy from plowing through that too small HP pool and laying him out.

A Sorcerer can actually get relevant AC, you can manage around oh, 32, without especially trying at the same level, and much higher if you did.

QuoteI 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.

Nope. That'd only happen if the enemy:

Moved more than 5 feet, without making a trivial tumble check (AoOs do not do SA damage, even if SA would be allowed).
Cast a spell non defensively (no one does this, and since we're talking about full attackers no spells... those rape Rogues party wide, instead of one at a time.
Did one of the other things you'd never actually do in combat that provoke.

But attacking isn't one of them.

QuoteActually 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.

How is this not what I said?

It ignores the turtle, eats the other guy, and then goes after the turtle. That is, assuming the AC even made a difference, and it wasn't take a to hit penalty for no real reason.

QuoteIn 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.

Then those Wizards totally fail at life.

Anti invis is a standard thing you do, not because of Rogues or any such nonsense, but because of actual threats that use it as a ghetto form of scry and fry. If the Wizard doesn't cast it someone else should, but if you're constantly getting jumped by invisible things it's because you done fucked up.

Wizards also are tied with Druids, and someone else for having the easiest and quickest time getting SA immunity and the most ways of doing so overall. So if you're even taking SA damage at all, ever, and your level is a double digit number, just delete and reroll now and save us the trouble.

QuoteYour 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.

I follow the actual rules, and don't let you tap out and play pretend. I'm not surprised you'd say that basket weaver, and I will take it as a mark of approval.

QuoteWhy 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.

It's on the other side to try and prove the Rogues won't be slaughtered. I already know that they will. Why would I argue against myself? So you won't do it, get someone that will. Or just STFU and accept Rogue = gimp.

Quote from: mcbobbo;591974There's no scenario in that thread.

Who wrote it?

And was it published?

Your questions have already been answered. You can either make a team of Rogues and challenge the Standard Adventuring Day or you can just be SAD in the corner.