I don't want to derail another thread, but I'm coming up short on the term 'basket weaver'. It's being used as a derrogative, and seems directed at 'lesser gamers', but that's all I'm gaining from the context.
I found this (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=8906.0;wap2), via Google, which may be a definition of it:
QuoteOkay, here. Now, is it a commonly held property in RPG's that, if you have a lot of skill in a particular area, you can use that to navigate nearly all challenges that meet you?
Is it about exploring a world which is actually defined by your skills/choices. Ie, increase your diplomacy skill and the world actually changes so that now diplomacy will get you through challenges more than it would have before. Where there wasn't an option to diplomatically get through before, one now exists because your PC has high diplomacy.
Likewise, if you have high basket weaving, you may be able to basket weave your way through most challenges.
Well, no. But we like to say 'Well, it should be about the GM spotting what the characters good at and giving them the opportunity to shine'. But I think the basket weaving example shows the similarity between CRPG and RPG. Most GM's aren't going to work basket weaving into the solution to challenges. Their world is going to have a central focus on challenge resolution, combat for example, and the further away you are from that skill wise, the less you'll shine.
So, perhaps, 'basket weaver' means 'player who would place points into useless skills like basket weaving'?
It brings up a side curiousity - how would you deal with deliberately non-optimal choices in your games? E.g. character comes from a long line of basket weavers?
I'd probably advise the player that I'm not planning on touching on this topic in my campaign, and I'd make them reiterate to me that it won't wind up being a good investment. But once everyone was fully informed, I think this would be the end of it.
I'd also give XP any time the player found creative ways to work it back into the game.
OTOH, I may well give the characters each free skill points in whatever non-useful background skills they wanted. Something like four would do the trick, I think. And so long as it was offered to the group, even if they didn't all take it, I think maybe the group as a whole goes unharmed.
I don't think of any points as "wasted". Even if they are not "incredibly useful in every situation".
If I have a "combat monger" character who dumps a bunch of points into a bunch of combat skills, but it's a diplomatic mission, I consider those just as "useless" as the "basket weaver" example.
On one of our con games, we presented an "engineer" character for a nautical game. We had one person complain that the character didn't have "any useful skills". Yet another player praised the character as a fun, unusual choice that really gave him an enjoyable roleplaying experience.
One person's "useless skill" is another's "enjoyable roleplaying experience.'
In Sixcess, we try to mitigate this situation by allowing skill and attribute pairings that may seem unusual to enhance the roleplaying experience. In fact, we've had players pair "Intellect" and "Lore" to make an attempt to hit a critter in a "sensitive area" based on his knowledge of the critter's weak points.
That being said, if I have someone dumping a lot of points in to "Chess" and "Elven Cuisine" I'm apt to say, "those may be difficult to work into a typical roleplaying situation...."
Quote from: mcbobbo;587783I'd probably advise the player that I'm not planning on touching on this topic in my campaign, and I'd make them reiterate to me that it won't wind up being a good investment. But once everyone was fully informed, I think this would be the end of it.
I approach my games as a GM a little differently. I start with a pitch of the setting and genre, but then have players create characters, and tailor the actual game to those characters.
For me, the choices a player makes in skills/traits/abilities etc is in a way a list of things they'd like to do in the game. So if a player takes "mountainclimbing", I'll provide opportunities for that to happen. As long as it fits the genre and tone I'm going for, I see a large part of my role as GM is to provide the experiences that the players will find most interesting.
Quote from: Ben Rogers;587800In Sixcess, we try to mitigate this situation by allowing skill and attribute pairings that may seem unusual to enhance the roleplaying experience. In fact, we've had players pair "Intellect" and "Lore" to make an attempt to hit a critter in a "sensitive area" based on his knowledge of the critter's weak points.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. MiniSix has a similar optional concept, IIRC.
Quote from: TristramEvans;587805I approach my games as a GM a little differently. I start with a pitch of the setting and genre, but then have players create characters, and tailor the actual game to those characters.
For me, the choices a player makes in skills/traits/abilities etc is in a way a list of things they'd like to do in the game. So if a player takes "mountainclimbing", I'll provide opportunities for that to happen. As long as it fits the genre and tone I'm going for, I see a large part of my role as GM is to provide the experiences that the players will find most interesting.
Do you have input in the process if/when it doesn't match your pitch?
It varies a lot, especially by system, but imagine you pitching a 'heroic' and the player wants to play a villian. What's your schtick?
QuoteIs it about exploring a world which is actually defined by your skills/choices. Ie, increase your diplomacy skill and the world actually changes so that now diplomacy will get you through challenges more than it would have before. Where there wasn't an option to diplomatically get through before, one now exists because your PC has high diplomacy.
This sounds terrible.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
1)Let players choose their skill set based on the challenges they face.
2)Let players choose the challenges they face based on their skill set.
Do these two things and it will improve the relevance of PC skills to the challenges they face (if that's a priority for you). The behind-the-scenes changes smacks of railroading to me.
_________________________
If this is what basketweaving refers to (it doesn't sound right based on the way it's been used in discussion) I've had cases where similar skills (in this case brewing) became useful to the campaign. I basically started a tavern that expanded to become sort of an adventuring guild.
There's also the question of the resources spent. Skill ranks are significantly less important than class, level, feats, etc. in 3x. Having only spent skill ranks in this I wasn't really penalized in the role of combat monster (I was actually somewhat minmaxed outside of that).
Quote from: mcbobbo;587783I don't want to derail another thread, but I'm coming up short on the term 'basket weaver'. It's being used as a derrogative, and seems directed at 'lesser gamers', but that's all I'm gaining from the context.
I found this (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=8906.0;wap2), via Google, which may be a definition of it:
So, perhaps, 'basket weaver' means 'player who would place points into useless skills like basket weaving'?
It brings up a side curiousity - how would you deal with deliberately non-optimal choices in your games? E.g. character comes from a long line of basket weavers?
I'd probably advise the player that I'm not planning on touching on this topic in my campaign, and I'd make them reiterate to me that it won't wind up being a good investment. But once everyone was fully informed, I think this would be the end of it.
I'd also give XP any time the player found creative ways to work it back into the game.
OTOH, I may well give the characters each free skill points in whatever non-useful background skills they wanted. Something like four would do the trick, I think. And so long as it was offered to the group, even if they didn't all take it, I think maybe the group as a whole goes unharmed.
This is actually remarkably close to the actual definition. Seriously, I'm surprised and a little impressed.
The term originally came about because in response to some optimizer joke about being willing to optimize anything someone optimized basket weaving... which is as far away as you can get from something that'd have any practical application in a tabletop game (spare me the pedantry of Shrink Item basket hats to block AMFs, thanks).
Someone that deliberately chooses to focus on things that are not and cannot be relevant is a basket weaver. The term has since involved to include a specific subset of player that refuses to learn how to play the game effectively and insists everyone be as ineffective as them.
You can identify these many different ways. Here is a non exhaustive list:
The player blames the DM for anything bad that happens to their character even though the problem is that their character just isn't capable of preventing bad things from happening to them.
The player complains when their allies are able to successfully do something that they are not and insists this is unfair.
The DM will not allow any player to be more relevant than the Fighter, or any weak class (and as the Fighter is entirely irrelevant, so too is the entire party).
In and out of the game, the person pointedly avoids saying anything of substance. Classics include pretending things are equally valid when they are not, "There are no worthless classes only worthless players" and many other variants that can all be summarized as a standard basket weaver dodge since if forced to say something concrete they will be wrong 100% of the time.
The player complains when their character is easily killed by something they should have easily been able to handle.
The character is flat out incapable of doing whatever it is they are supposed to do and when this is pointed out to them their response is to try and claim the DM will protect them... which reminds me of that Ignoratio song.
The easiest identifier though is to simply look for a situation in which the player is not very good at doing something.
The ones that learn how to get better at it are good players.
The ones that accept they suck at it and move on are not basket weavers.
The ones that blame everyone but themselves for this? Basket weaver.
Because the basket weaver stance is inherently inconsistent, incoherent, and often contradictory (as the basket weaver still wants to succeed and win D&D, despite having no actual ability to do so) the only way of dealing with them is to just ignore them. Play the game, do not lower the difficulty in the slightest (and if your non basket weaver players want it raised, do so immediately). The result? Basket weaving characters start dying early and often. The players will get mad, blame everyone else but do not enable them. Instead continue on playing D&D.
If you can catch this early it's very easy to fix... generally after the first or second time at most they'll realize something is wrong and take steps to fix the problem.
If not... if they've been enabled a while, it will take much longer to correct their bad habits and bad play. It is still very possible though. That Temporal story with the Truenamer from a while back was a great example of how you can fix both a basket weaving player and a basket weaving DM, much to the joy of all involved.
Quote from: TristramEvans;587805I approach my games as a GM a little differently. I start with a pitch of the setting and genre, but then have players create characters, and tailor the actual game to those characters.
I once used a questionaire to each of my players when starting a 7th Sea game to great effect. I tailored the game both to their character choices in skills and other elements -- and also to the responses that the players made to the questionaire. It was probably the most successful game -- in terms of players telling cool stories of previous game events -- that I've ever run.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587813Do you have input in the process if/when it doesn't match your pitch?
Oh, yeah, I do final approval on all characters. If something seems out of place, I'll ask the player what their intention is, and then discuss why I think it might not fit the game. But I like to give players complete control over any choices regarding their characters, as I assume complete control over the rules and rulings as a GM.
Luckily I've had good luck with groups and we're all pretty much on the same page most of the time. We tend to discuss genres and the themes of the games we're going for quite a bit.
Quoteimagine you pitching a 'heroic' and the player wants to play a villian. What's your schtick?
Basically "not in this game". I'm not a big fan of antiheroes or villains as protagonists, and I'm upfront about that from the start with my players.
Quote from: Mr. GC;587815The term originally came about because in response to some optimizer joke about being willing to optimize anything someone optimized basket weaving...
Actually, that's false. The term originally comes from Fate 2nd Edition.
Quote from: TristramEvans;587827Actually, that's false. The term originally comes from Fate 2nd Edition.
Is this the part where you start talking about something irrelevant?
Here, let me go ahead and stomp out that pedantic bullshit since this thread is actually useful:
Basket weaving, in the sense it is being used in regarding D&D came about...
Quote from: beejazz;587814The behind-the-scenes changes smacks of railroading to me.
It isn't a one-to-one corellation, though. If the PCs want to go off the rails, having a nearby village (that didn't exist a minute ago, and you had to invent it on the fly) host a basket weaving contest, might be a good diversion. Gives you a chance to think of what to play out next...
Quote from: beejazz;587814There's also the question of the resources spent. Skill ranks are significantly less important than class, level, feats, etc. in 3x. Having only spent skill ranks in this I wasn't really penalized in the role of combat monster (I was actually somewhat minmaxed outside of that).
Yeah, that's true. And I think I'd adapt my advice a great deal based on the amount of investment.
I hate optimisation becuase its highly unrealistic and becuase I love role playing.
So I create a character and if they end up withe lots of points in basket weaving then so be it, if they for example come from a long line of basket weavers.
No problem with that. You have to have options. Options enable roleplay. Roleplay is good.
Now deliberately optimising basket weaving is just as faux as deliberately optimising everything but spending enough points to be a master weaver that is fine.
I dislike 'professional adventures' far more than I dislike basket weavers, plumbers, horse salesman and egyptology professors.
I ran a Zombipocalypse game one shot where the PCs were all workers on a tube train. I used a modded oWoD system. Each PC rolled a job. We had 2 office workers, a plumber and a teacher. They created their PCs as realistically as they could. The tube (underground train) they were on got caught in a temporal rift, triggerd by an NPC on the carriage, they all wake to find themselves and a handful of others on the crashed train,. Then the Zombies show up.
I didn't tell the players what was coming but there was a definite desire to get the usual combat skills if they could trying to justify it through being in the TA, being an amateur boxer, a martial arts fanatic etc ..
They eventually got the idea and pulled that back to norm levels.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587836It isn't a one-to-one corellation, though. If the PCs want to go off the rails, having a nearby village (that didn't exist a minute ago, and you had to invent it on the fly) host a basket weaving contest, might be a good diversion. Gives you a chance to think of what to play out next...
Improv is improv, and I won't argue that it shouldn't become necessary. But I prep to minimize the need for it. And again, I'd set up a few things happening in the town and let the party select, rather than making the town about one thing that a PC happens to be good at.
Ultimately it's just a difference in how we'd run it.
QuoteYeah, that's true. And I think I'd adapt my advice a great deal based on the amount of investment.
Yep. With the Denners, I'm sure the outrage is predominantly over the fighter given the significance of the cost associated with class. I doubt any would actually bitch about my brewer if I brought him to the table.
As for the imagined personality of someone who invests in basket-weaving... *shrug* They're prone to hyperbole and ad-hominem. It's not actually worth addressing.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587840I ran a Zombipocalypse game one shot where the PCs were all workers on a tube train. I used a modded oWoD system. Each PC rolled a job. We had 2 office workers, a plumber and a teacher. They created their PCs as realistically as they could. The tube (underground train) they were on got caught in a temporal rift, triggerd by an NPC on the carriage, they all wake to find themselves and a handful of others on the crashed train,. Then the Zombies show up.
I didn't tell the players what was coming but there was a definite desire to get the usual combat skills if they could trying to justify it through being in the TA, being an amateur boxer, a martial arts fanatic etc ..
They eventually got the idea and pulled that back to norm levels.
Sounds like a hoot. Did they know ahead of time that things would go zombie on them?
I did this with a d20 modern game, but mine was more of a bait-and-switch. They made a scientific/military team, and thought they were going into space. Through a mishap, though, they wound up in RIFTS. At the end of the adventure, I gave them all two free levels, and we opened up the fantasy classes and other options. I said time was passing and they could tailor their characters to the setting. Worked pretty well, and made for some 'organically grown' characters.
Quote from: beejazz;587843Yep. With the Denners, I'm sure the outrage is predominantly over the fighter given the significance of the cost associated with class. I doubt any would actually bitch about my brewer if I brought him to the table.
As for the imagined personality of someone who invests in basket-weaving... *shrug* They're prone to hyperbole and ad-hominem. It's not actually worth addressing.
On the one hand I can sort of see the fighter argument, except that if they're min-maxed they won't have the attributes to power more skill points anyway.
Amen to the threadcrapping, but I suspect the term applies to anyone who would be willing to place even a single point in basket weaving or any other non-perfect skill selection.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587783I don't want to derail another thread, but I'm coming up short on the term 'basket weaver'. It's being used as a derrogative, and seems directed at 'lesser gamers', but that's all I'm gaining from the context.
I found this (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=8906.0;wap2), via Google, which may be a definition of it:
So, perhaps, 'basket weaver' means 'player who would place points into useless skills like basket weaving'?
It brings up a side curiousity - how would you deal with deliberately non-optimal choices in your games? E.g. character comes from a long line of basket weavers?
I'd probably advise the player that I'm not planning on touching on this topic in my campaign, and I'd make them reiterate to me that it won't wind up being a good investment. But once everyone was fully informed, I think this would be the end of it.
I'd also give XP any time the player found creative ways to work it back into the game.
OTOH, I may well give the characters each free skill points in whatever non-useful background skills they wanted. Something like four would do the trick, I think. And so long as it was offered to the group, even if they didn't all take it, I think maybe the group as a whole goes unharmed.
The best way to deal with this is at the design stage.Seriously there should be no reason that a player's basket weaving heritage should handicap the character for the rest of the game. In 3rd I'd solve this issue by just giving the player points in basket weaving at no cost. It is literally so useless of a "thing" that it can be given away.
Now if the player is deliberately making a weak character with the intention of being weak I would probably just allow them to do so. I don't really care. I would however make no adjustments to the difficulty of the campaign and if the other players are ready and willing to pick up the slack then there's no need for me to "do" anything. They will either not have fun and regret their decision (at which time I will allow them to change characters) or a good time will be had by all.
Quote from: Ben Rogers;587800We had one person complain that the character didn't have "any useful skills".
Bingo. To some players, that complaint seems natural. To other players, that complaint seems mind-boggling. Why the difference?
+++Incoming Wall of Text+++
When you are playing a RPG like a competitive sport, with Players V. World, or Players v. Other Tournament Teams, then when you have a party filled with the likes of Gandalf, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli, someone showing up with Peregrin Took isn't going to garner much goodwill.
In a similar vein, if you are playing the "Heat Style" of Shadowrun/Cyberpunk, then someone showing up with a full "Pink Mohawk" character could be a problem.
It's simply a gaming culture difference.
If you consider your character first and foremost from the point of view of that character and how he grew in that world prior to "entering the campaign" then he probably is going to look quite a bit like a real person in our world as far as skill sets go, ie. be not too optimized. This older style of play worked very well when most of the real game-effecting mechanics was hard-coded into your class choice with a relatively low level of optimization.
Place one of these non-optimizers into a game system with a high level of optimization and they tend to do what they always did, create interesting, realistic characters who will underperform compared to a character who had hard-coded abilities.
If, however, you consider your character first and foremost from the metagame point of view that you are playing a game with others and your job is to keep up your end of the team, then you are going to optimize for the adventuring experience. If you're playing a campaign where your characters are supposed to be highly-skilled professionals from the get-go, then it's not even metagaming.
Where does the problem come from? The problem comes from the mixture of the two gaming styles, which actually doesn't happen all that often at an actual gaming table (although it does happen), this controversy is mainly of internet manufacture.
Someone who is a heavy optimizer in a group of non-optimizers is a Munchkin etc, someone who is a non-optimizer in a group of optimizers is a Basketweaver etc.
Of course, since this is a controversy concerning a leisure activity of affluent first worlders we're talking about, it becomes vehement to the point of idiocy.
The thread where we nail down the definition of a word used in another thread is the least vitriolic of these threads.
Not sure what to make of this.
I'm not sure why everyone is so down on basket weaving, its pretty useful. When you get down to it, basket weaving isn't just about making baskets, its about taking natural materials like leaves rushes and reeds, sticks and branches, and shaping them into a useful form. Tell Ray Mears that's a useless skill.
As GM I'd give leeway when using it to encompass building fences, roofing, impromptu shelters, even canoes or wicker shields, and by god baskets when you need a basket.
This is part of where the creative imagination of the players comes into play. Stuck in a bamboo cage like the guys in Rambo? Use basket weaving to figure out the weak point and do your work under the cover of darkness. Rattan is made with basketweaving techniques, and that's like lightweight hardwood. Weave coded messages into squares of grass for the rest of the group to find, make a net of briars. Starving to death, clear a river of fish with a simple basket configuration trap.
All of these skills existed at the time for a reason, by understanding these skills and what is involved in using them a GM can help players to stretch them and make them useful in adventuring situations.
Accounting, completely useless right? Hey, your 75% artifact recovery tax is due, and you haven't got nearly the readies. Whip out the accountant and suddenly you're claiming everything from insurance expenses to danger money and possibly a de facto pensionable government position due to doing their jobs for them. :D
Imagination folks, that's what its all about. And a good understanding between the GM and group of course.
Quote from: The Traveller;587865Imagination folks, that's what its all about. And a good understanding between the GM and group of course.
That's it in a nutshell.
Recently played a game of The One Ring where the entire party's lives were saved by the cooking skills of the hobbit.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587783It brings up a side curiousity - how would you deal with deliberately non-optimal choices in your games? E.g. character comes from a long line of basket weavers?
"That's fine. I'm not sure how much it will come up in the campaign, but you're the one playing the character. Have you taken anything else that might potentially come up more often?"
I've inadvertantly played a basket weaver character a few times, by not understanding the rule set before play, or creating a character that couldn't interact with the game (The one that springs to mind was a Shadowrun social mage, who was a bit of a coward. He once spent an evening's play hiding in a van, because there was literally nothing else he could do. It was a bit of a "My Guy" incident as well; I could have had him break character, but that would have felt equally wrong.). It's no fun. I think games should avoid including "build traps" like that, or explicitly state when you'd want to take a particular thing and when you wouldn't. See also Toughness in D&D3, or extra health charms in Exalted.
I've also deliberately taken useless skills. My SLA op, a frother psycho with a flick scythe and the desire to be a God of Death, can sew. Why? Because I was drunk, and it was funny. Now he sews the logos on team gear; I suspect he also makes plushies for SLA fankids when I'm not paying attention.
A player who purposefully makes a "useless" character, though, is being disruptive. This is a "you'll know it when you see it" line, though. Some players can make a success of a basket weaver, and some can't.
Quote from: The Traveller;587865I'm not sure why everyone is so down on basket weaving, its pretty useful.
You, sir. You're allowed to take basket weaving in any campaign I run.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587848On the one hand I can sort of see the fighter argument, except that if they're min-maxed they won't have the attributes to power more skill points anyway.
Amen to the threadcrapping, but I suspect the term applies to anyone who would be willing to place even a single point in basket weaving or any other non-perfect skill selection.
It has nothing to do with skill selection. It's moved well past that, particularly since there's only about 2 skills in total that have any significant effect and so there is nothing meaningful you can do with "skill points" anyways.
But leave it to the locals to take everything in an overly literal manner.
Quote from: The Traveller;587865I'm not sure why everyone is so down on basket weaving, its pretty useful. When you get down to it, basket weaving isn't just about making baskets, its about taking natural materials like leaves rushes and reeds, sticks and branches, and shaping them into a useful form. Tell Ray Mears that's a useless skill.
As GM I'd give leeway when using it to encompass building fences, roofing, impromptu shelters, even canoes or wicker shields, and by god baskets when you need a basket.
This is part of where the creative imagination of the players comes into play. Stuck in a bamboo cage like the guys in Rambo? Use basket weaving to figure out the weak point and do your work under the cover of darkness. Rattan is made with basketweaving techniques, and that's like lightweight hardwood. Weave coded messages into squares of grass for the rest of the group to find, make a net of briars. Starving to death, clear a river of fish with a simple basket configuration trap.
All of these skills existed at the time for a reason, by understanding these skills and what is involved in using them a GM can help players to stretch them and make them useful in adventuring situations.
Accounting, completely useless right? Hey, your 75% artifact recovery tax is due, and you haven't got nearly the readies. Whip out the accountant and suddenly you're claiming everything from insurance expenses to danger money and possibly a de facto pensionable government position due to doing their jobs for them. :D
Imagination folks, that's what its all about. And a good understanding between the GM and group of course.
Interesting because in real life Basket Weaving like Pottery is a critical skill for human development. Baskets and pots allow you to store excess and that allows for the development of wealth which leads to everything from capitalist exploitation of the working class to professional soldiers.
Quote from: Ladybird;587867I've inadvertantly played a basket weaver character a few times, by not understanding the rule set before play, or creating a character that couldn't interact with the game
If it was inadvertant I'd honestly say the blame lay with the GM.
Quote from: TristramEvans;587890If it was inadvertant I'd honestly say the blame lay with the GM.
That depends on the GM fully understanding the game mechanics as well, though, and the sort of analysis that shows why some options are actually crap is sometimes quite non-intuitive.
And my mage, well, I've got to take some of the blame for that.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587845Sounds like a hoot. Did they know ahead of time that things would go zombie on them?
I did this with a d20 modern game, but mine was more of a bait-and-switch. They made a scientific/military team, and thought they were going into space. Through a mishap, though, they wound up in RIFTS. At the end of the adventure, I gave them all two free levels, and we opened up the fantasy classes and other options. I said time was passing and they could tailor their characters to the setting. Worked pretty well, and made for some 'organically grown' characters.
They had no idea what was coming up. I had tried to hint that it might be terrorist related in some way.
The whole point, and the tenuous link to the OP, was that I did not want the PCs to play military types. I wanted them to be everymen put in a difficult situation. Its how we always played CoC as well as an aside.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587889Interesting because in real life Basket Weaving like Pottery is a critical skill for human development. Baskets and pots allow you to store excess and that allows for the development of wealth which leads to everything from capitalist exploitation of the working class to professional soldiers.
It was still being used by industrialised societies in world word one to shore up the sides of trenches (http://www.flickr.com/photos/xanthias/6234271871/), which has clear applications in mining, sieges, and dungeon crawling. You could build an entire fortress complex with the skill, as the Crannógs in Ireland and Scotland illustrate.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Crannog_-_geograph.org.uk_-_35551.jpg)
Of course I've spent too much time among people for whom basketweaving is an important primary skill not to fully appreciate it, but the same idea applies to any of these skills. Pottery could arguably be linked to rammed earth buildings for example, which are still in wide use today.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587840I hate optimisation becuase its highly unrealistic and becuase I love role playing.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQaEtQF28fMV4OPauIbJiFUnzEsF7Mg6N9XdON1TRj1GCN5EvgI)
Stormwind fallacy. Incredibly blatant Stromwind fallacy at that, what is this 2006.
Final grade F, See you in the fall semester.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;587903Stormwind fallacy. Incredibly blatant Stromwind fallacy at that, what is this 2006.
Final grade F, See you in the fall semester.
Not sure what a stormwind falacy is to be honest but in RL optimistation is very very very uncommon. I also don't get the reference to 2006? Was that when you started gaming?
A very small % of real people spend all their time focusing on just one thing. Some do, the very best classical musicians, some nobel prize winners, top olympic athletes but most do not.
Most people do a lot of stuff and find something they either enjoy or do well enough to make a living at. I propose that the majority of RPG characters should be like real people.
I like playing people with weaknesses, people who are falable. Not to say I always play hopeless characters by any means. Though I would never discard a bad set of rolls in D&D nor would I mind playing Captain America in an Avengers game.
I stated at length in various recent threads that I totally understand and am sympathetic to the 'denners' position on the lack of balance in D&D for example and that in the design phase you should look at balance as a key element. However, if you provide options, and a player opts to build a sub-par character with those options then I find no problem with that. You can play whatever character you like.
Now my take on RPGs might not fit yours. That is fine. I am merely expressing an opinion.
Quote from: Mr. GC;587815Someone that deliberately chooses to focus on things that are not and cannot be relevant is a basket weaver. The term has since involved to include a specific subset of player that refuses to learn how to play the game effectively and insists everyone be as ineffective as them.
"I must win D&D!!"
QuoteYou can identify these many different ways. Here is a non exhaustive list:
The player blames the DM for anything bad that happens to their character even though the problem is that their character just isn't capable of preventing bad things from happening to them.
And continues to do so years later, constantly whining that Vintage Games are terrible because the don't have the rules structure for preventing DMs from touching their character inappropriately.
QuoteThe player complains when their allies are able to successfully do something that they are not and insists this is unfair.
They assume this is due to the other players cheating or having an 'in' with the DM and not realizing it's because the others are better players that learned from their previous mistakes; said player refuses to learn how to be a better player and gravitates towards rules-heavy games they can lawyer into oblivion.
QuoteThe DM will not allow any player to be more relevant than the Fighter, or any weak class (and as the Fighter is entirely irrelevant, so too is the entire party).
These kinds of player also tend to make things up whole cloth, or regurgiquote stuff written by others, ignoring plain evidence where they are wrong and almost always mistaken about a number of facets.
QuoteIn and out of the game, the person pointedly avoids saying anything of substance. Classics include pretending things are equally valid when they are not, "There are no worthless classes only worthless players" and many other variants that can all be summarized as a standard basket weaver dodge since if forced to say something concrete they will be wrong 100% of the time.
They utterly fail to understand what the word 'irony' means, setting up an infinite loop of Ironybouros without realizing it. Also, they are shitty players.
QuoteThe player complains when their character is easily killed by something they should have easily been able to handle.
Which ends up being the eternal whining about how the DM touched their character; this mostly results from putting a 3hp Thief on the front lines in the mistaken belief the DM won't let the anything happen to the party because they are there to succeed and get a ribbon for showing up.
QuoteThe character is flat out incapable of doing whatever it is they are supposed to do and when this is pointed out to them their response is to try and claim the DM will protect them... which reminds me of that Ignoratio song.
Small typo: in that first sentence, swap out 'player' for 'character'.
QuoteThe easiest identifier though is to simply look for a situation in which the player is not very good at doing something.
Which is pretty much everything with this half dozen strong cohort. Example: Maths.
QuoteThe ones that learn how to get better at it are good players.
The ones that accept they suck at it and move on are not basket weavers.
The ones that blame everyone but themselves for this? Basket weaver.
Interesting, because your new definition has nothing to do with the original definition you completely agreed with.
QuoteBecause the basket weaver stance is inherently inconsistent, incoherent, and often contradictory (as the basket weaver still wants to succeed and win D&D, despite having no actual ability to do so)...
Lookit that! You
do know what irony means.
QuoteIf you can catch this early it's very easy to fix... generally after the first or second time at most they'll realize something is wrong and take steps to fix the problem.
Yes, you kick out the player that is being a douchebag about trying to win D&D and bitching that another player took some skill points in cooking.
QuoteIf not... if they've been enabled a while, it will take much longer to correct their bad habits and bad play. It is still very possible though.
I have direct evidence in a half dozen cases where it is, in fact, not possible.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587904Not sure what a stormwind falacy is to be honest but in RL optimistation is very very very uncommon. I also don't get the reference to 2006? Was that when you started gaming?
He doesn't know what a Stormwind fallacy is either; Mistborn thinks that someone who holds a substantially different opinion is employing a strawman argument.
For everyone;'s edification, here's a succinct definition of The Stormwind Fallacy.
http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy
For the most part I agree with it, but the funny thing is that Mistborn/GC actually epitomizes the fallacy in his view that if a character isn't optimized, it's bad roleplaying. It's also , as is stated in the page, aconcursive part of the rollplay vs roleplay debate that Mistborn or his clone derided several pages ago. There's irony for you.
Where the stormwind fallacy failsis that equates optimization with combat ability. A Thief is not optimized by having the best possible hand to hand combat skills, but by being the stealthiest, sneakiest, and perceptive character they can be. An rpg character in general is optimized by providing the most fun to the player and group, not by being able to kill or hoard treasure the best. A Call of Cthulhu investigator, for example, who maxes out their combat skills is not optimized for the game they are going to be playing in, just as a D&d Paladin with the best possible Thac0 is not optimized for a game that's focused on court intrigue, diplomacy between nations, or exploration.
In other words, a munchkin is still a munchkin, even if they cite random internet game theory terms.
Quote from: StormBringer;587907"I must win D&D!!"
QuoteHello ladies. Look at your party. Now back to me. Now back at your party. Now back to me. Sadly, they aren't me. But if they stopped buffing each other to death and started playing smartly they could win D&D like me. Look down. Up. Where are you? You're on a boat! With the group your group could win like! What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's the rulebooks filled with all the good spells. Look again. The rulebooks are now diamonds! Anything is possible when your party kills the enemies and not each other. I'm on a Cauchemar.
QuoteAnd continues to do so years later, constantly whining that Vintage Games are terrible because the don't have the rules structure for preventing DMs from touching their character inappropriately.
The rulebooks themselves touch my character inappropriately.
QuoteThey assume this is due to the other players cheating or having an 'in' with the DM and not realizing it's because the others are better players that learned from their previous mistakes; said player refuses to learn how to be a better player and gravitates towards rules-heavy games they can lawyer into oblivion.
Better player = blow DM, or otherwise subject yourself to subjective bullshit. Um yeah. No.
QuoteThey utterly fail to understand what the word 'irony' means, setting up an infinite loop of Ironybouros without realizing it. Also, they are shitty players.
Come at me Ironybringer.
QuoteWhich ends up being the eternal whining about how the DM touched their character; this mostly results from putting a 3hp Thief on the front lines in the mistaken belief the DM won't let the anything happen to the party because they are there to succeed and get a ribbon for showing up.
No good player thinks a thief can handle anything except dying horribly and possibly taking their party with them if they actually trust the guy, but nice try.
The rest of your fail is unsalvagable, so I won't attempt to try. Your Truenamer will be deployed shortly though.
Quote from: StormBringer;587907"I must win D&D!!"
And continues to do so years later, constantly whining that Vintage Games are terrible because the don't have the rules structure for preventing DMs from touching their character inappropriately.
I have direct evidence in a half dozen cases where it is, in fact, not possible.
Actually.... there is a slight break here.
To make a truely weak character you need a system which allows you to customise and optimise.
A vintage game like AD&D doesn't allow you to customise therefore you can't really make a weak character. Even more true in OD&D where there is so little differentiation. You might argue that some classes are weak, which is a whole other discussion, but a character with 6 9's for stats is almost identical to one with 6 14's and not so different to one with 6 15s.
To make a truly hopeless character, one with +20 basket weaving for example, you need a system like Gurps or 3.5 D&D where you have a lot of options.
Basket Weaving (or a similar course) was the elective course one took in the last semester of high school to guarantee maintaining a high GPA. It was considered a course that was impossible to fail, and even amongst the engineering and science elite was a popular course to take during that last semester of school. There was no homework. No tests. Just time spent making cool looking grass baskets. It was also a course that was popular with the stoners, for obvious reasons.
I really didn't hear about the use of the term in gaming until after the 2nd edition (with skills) was released. It originally referred to a skill that was included in the game that was really effectively useless for the player, but one which on character generation you could roll up, and would take up a useful skills slot.
Basket Weaving type skills drove char-ops optimizer type gamers batshit insane because it co-opted their favorite "perfect" characters builds.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587904Not sure what a stormwind falacy is to be honest but in RL optimistation is very very very uncommon. I also don't get the reference to 2006? Was that when you started gaming?
Quote from: Tempest StormwindThe 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.
This was posted in 2006 btw. This is another one of those long settled topics.
I'm no longer surprised to see this sort of ancient bullshit peddled on these forums.
You haven't updated your games since 2000 and you haven't updated your arguments either
Quote from: The Traveller;587865I'm not sure why everyone is so down on basket weaving, its pretty useful. When you get down to it, basket weaving isn't just about making baskets, its about taking natural materials like leaves rushes and reeds, sticks and branches, and shaping them into a useful form. Tell Ray Mears that's a useless skill.
As GM I'd give leeway when using it to encompass building fences, roofing, impromptu shelters, even canoes or wicker shields, and by god baskets when you need a basket.
This is part of where the creative imagination of the players comes into play.
Here is a major part of the issue I just want to highlight. There are a couple of things here I wanna draw attention to:
1) There is nothing inherently "wrong" with basket weaving or having a profession in general. It is logical, thematic, and helps verisimilitude because in any functioning world there are mundane necessities and luxuries people spend money and time on producing and enjoying.
2)The problem is not that such a thing exists but that we are (at least as far as DnD is concerned) not at all hampered by not having these kind of skills and are only perhaps marginally aided by having them because in most cases having the ability to weave a basket is never going to come up even in a minor way in a campaign.
3) This problem gets worse when you take into account that learning how to basket weave directly takes away from your ability to do other, more important, and more useful skills. In point buy games basket weaving would cost much less than other,much more useful skills or abilities.
4) Basket weaving is known to be a weaker option and that can breed resentment for people not wanting to be handicapped by someone in the group choosing a domestic skill that in no way helps the group. This is exponentially worse if the person's entire character is based around it. Making characters that can't actually do anything significant to aid the adventure can be looked at as disruptive.
5) This issue is often times propagated when people put themselves into camps instead of looking at the issue in a sensible way. Some GMs will wholesale accept basket weaving antics and actually encourage them by forcibly stretching the campaign to involve the skill or stretching what the skill can actually do. Other camps will just wholly deny the same, claiming that people who do it are subhuman or being disruptive.
All these things can be solved at the design stage by either not making basket weaving a thing you can ever choose to do, making it so attempting to do it is something the GM has total control of and getting it doesn't cost you any significant resources, or by making it cost something different then what more significant abilities cost.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587889Interesting because in real life Basket Weaving like Pottery is a critical skill for human development. Baskets and pots allow you to store excess and that allows for the development of wealth which leads to everything from capitalist exploitation of the working class to professional soldiers.
To houses with basements to exploit the new capacity for food storage, to a politician/advocate class with spare time enough to develop the ad hominem fallacy, to communication through a wire, to the invention of games open-ended enough to allow for both competitive and cooperative play, to the precarious standing of modern-day masculinity as technology makes muscle mass and patriarchy irrelevant leaving only impotent, hormonal aggressiveness.
(http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/wp-content/images/HLIC/b3457842e5f102bcb23414081508fd21.jpg)
Quote from: TristramEvans;587909For everyone;'s edification, here's a succinct definition of The Stormwind Fallacy.
http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy
For the most part I agree with it, but the funny thing is that Mistborn/GC actually epitomizes the fallacy in his view that if a character isn't optimized, it's bad roleplaying. It's also , as is stated in the page, aconcursive part of the rollplay vs roleplay debate that Mistborn or his clone derided several pages ago. There's irony for you.
Cool, thanks.
I am definitely a Drama queen :) But I totally understand rules and how they effect the game world.
Now I think the falacy as described above has 2 really weak points.
i) Old school D&D wasn't about roleplaying. It was much more RPG as a sport. Just read through descriptions of play by folk liek Old Geezer. Players didn't make sub-optimal choices for roleplay reasons. Gygax himsef thought that at the end of the AD&D era the game had shifted too much to the role play and not enough game.
ii) Optimisation is not an inherent result of their being rules. The rules describe how the universe works. They establish a framework. Within that framework an invidiual PC is unlikely to optimise. Its really hard to go to the gym every day and train. Its dull boring and repetative most people are really bad at doing that , likewise its really hard to spend 14 hours a day in a magic lab or praying ot practising pick pocket skills. There is a reason why in films the bit where Batman or Rocky trains to be a hero is done is a montage of cut scenes.
Some people can do it, more people can focus on whatever they currently are doing (my misses is always on task and never has downtime), the majority of people waste time, reading, snoozing in an armchair listening to vivaldi, watching x-factor, trying to get laid, posting crap on RPG forums etc etc.
I have no problem playing a fighter with 14 Str and 16 Int. Its actually pretty intersting to try it out.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;587914This was posted in 2006 btw. This is another one of those long settled topics.
I'm no longer surprised to see this sort of ancient bullshit peddled on these forums.
You haven't updated your games since 2000 and you haven't updated your arguments either
Who settled it?
You might be right about the games thing :)
I didn't lay out an argument I laid out an opinion.
You see this is how it works.
A preference is something like "Mistborn sounds like someone I would hate to play an RPG with"
An argument runs more like "We can dedude from his comments that Misborn has a very narrow social circle. He probably lives alone, gets very little exercise and lives on junk food. In order to compensate for his own lack of self worth he posts on internet forums adopting a high minded dismissive attitude to all other posters on his chosen topics. He believes this makes him seem impressive to other whilst in reality it only serves to make him appear socially inept and graceless. "
Now also note I use an ad hominem argument, something that specificially attacks the individual rather than the points they have made. I very, very rarely do this as I think its counter productive to any sort of discussion but I note it is your prefered method of debate so I am attempting to accommodate you.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587912Actually.... there is a slight break here.
To make a truely weak character you need a system which allows you to customise and optimise.
A vintage game like AD&D doesn't allow you to customise therefore you can't really make a weak character. Even more true in OD&D where there is so little differentiation. You might argue that some classes are weak, which is a whole other discussion, but a character with 6 9's for stats is almost identical to one with 6 14's and not so different to one with 6 15s.
To make a truly hopeless character, one with +20 basket weaving for example, you need a system like Gurps or 3.5 D&D where you have a lot of options.
Good points. And honestly, I think this is one of the major pitfalls of mixing skill systems in with class/level systems. The skills tend to overshadow the class abilities, and because skills are customizable where class abilities generally aren't, optimizing skills becomes the mini-game. Since it has its own rewards, it tends to start overtaking other parts of the game for some groups and/or players.
Well, apparently being a "basket weaver" is not only about liking a particular play style. It's a life style, and it says something about you being a horrible person in everything you do, too... (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=285453#285453)
Quote from: Mr. GCQuote from: Lago PARANOIAQuote from: FrankTrollmanThe Basketweaver contingent are the people who use the fact that their characters are suboptimal as a shibboleth. The ones who act as if flaws in the rules and their characters marks some sort of moral virtue. The kinds of people who fap to the groupthink at TheRPGSite or Paizo's forums.
What do you think is the overlap between basket weavers and austerity advocates? It seems to me that people who both attach a moral purity to suffering and frame completely irrelevant tasks or activities in terms of a morality play won't just restrict this framing to a tiny collection of weird activities.
While I don't know what you are talking about I do know that the basket weaver mentality manifests itself outside of gameplay as well. It's clearly more a life style than a play style. Likewise, optimization is a life style (people used to approaching games in the most efficient manners also will look for ways to live their lives better).
This is because thought patterns aren't something you just turn on and off.
So remember folks: the games you like and the play styles you prefer say something about your morals and your being in life in general. This is not just about you liking this or that game, or preferring to play this or that way. This is about your mental well being, whether you suffer from brain damage, and ultimately, whether you are a good or bad person.
Quote from: Benoist;587926Well, apparently being a "basket weaver" is not only about liking a particular play style. It's a life style, and it says something about you being a horrible person in everything you do, too... (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=285453#285453)
So remember folks: the games you like and the play styles you prefer say something about your morals and your being in life in general. This is not just about you liking this or that game, or preferring to play this or that way. This is about your mental well being, whether you suffer from brain damage, and ultimately, whether you are a good or bad person.
Well as a pro-basket weaver... of course the games you prefer and the way you play them reflect who you are and how you live your life.
To people who write on internet forums about games, games are important so the games we choose and the way we play are definitely mirrors of who we are and how we live the rest of your life.
I would be very happy to be known as a person through how I play games and how I treat the people I play with and even those I talk with about the hobby on internet forums.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587912A vintage game like AD&D doesn't allow you to customise
I really could have sworn that you were one of the people claiming that picking equipment and NWPs in AD&D was Character Optimization in the ludicrous attempt to state that CharOp as 3e knows it was always with us, even back in the shadows of history.
I guess I'm remembering wrong...or maybe the Denner Romance is over now that they've stopped just making fun of Ben's playstyle and now include yours as well. ;)
I got news for you jibba: according to Mr. GC, you preferring AD&D 2e makes you a "basket weaver". This means you are a bad person, a loser, someone who will blame his problems on others all the time and be content with mediocrity. CharOpers, however, are objectively the better people, because they will seek to make their lives better, just like they optimize their characters for the game.
Quote from: MGuy;587915All these things can be solved at the design stage by either not making basket weaving a thing you can ever choose to do, making it so attempting to do it is something the GM has total control of and getting it doesn't cost you any significant resources, or by making it cost something different then what more significant abilities cost.
Or by campaigning in a living, breathing world - where in between killing things and taking their stuff, you can use those skills offstage during "downtime".
Quote from: CRKrueger;587929I really could have sworn that you were one of the people claiming that picking equipment and NWPs in AD&D was Character Optimization in the ludicrous attempt to state that CharOp as 3e knows it was always with us, even back in the shadows of history.
I guess I'm remembering wrong...or maybe the Denner Romance is over now that they've stopped just making fun of Ben's playstyle and now include yours as well. ;)
No I still think you can optimise, take a Paladin over a Fighter or a ranger over a military scout or do that RPG as a sport 10 foot pole play style where all of your PCs play the same way and do the same thing.
I just think you can't create a deliberately weak character. You can only be deliberately average because the option to drop HD for skills or drop to hit for additioanl languages don't turn up til 2e player options.
Going back to optimisation v role play. I don't think its a one off. I think you can play individual PCs who are optimised, just like you can play individual PCs who are 'professional adventures' with bags of ballbearings, flour, 10 foot poles etc etc ... its when all your Pcs are optimised or all your PCs are professional adventurers when you have to think about whether you are still roleplaying or not.
Quote from: Benoist;587930I got news for you jibba: according to Mr. GC, you preferring AD&D 2e makes you a "basket weaver". This means you are a bad person, a loser, someone who will blame his problems on others all the time and be content with mediocrity. CharOpers, however, are objectively the better people, because they will seek to make their lives better, just like they optimize their characters for the game.
Well no I am only a basket weaver if I choose to deliberately play a gimped character . I can do that a little in 2e but not nearly as well as I can in 3e.
And I totally accept that I am a basket weaver.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587922Who settled it?
You might be right about the games thing :)
I didn't lay out an argument I laid out an opinion.
You see this is how it works.
A preference is something like "Mistborn sounds like someone I would hate to play an RPG with"
An argument runs more like "We can dedude from his comments that Misborn has a very narrow social circle. He probably lives alone, gets very little exercise and lives on junk food. In order to compensate for his own lack of self worth he posts on internet forums adopting a high minded dismissive attitude to all other posters on his chosen topics. He believes this makes him seem impressive to other whilst in reality it only serves to make him appear socially inept and graceless. "
Now also note I use an ad hominem argument, something that specificially attacks the individual rather than the points they have made. I very, very rarely do this as I think its counter productive to any sort of discussion but I note it is your prefered method of debate so I am attempting to accommodate you.
Hi Welcome
Quote from: Benoist;587926Well, apparently being a "basket weaver" is not only about liking a particular play style. It's a life style, and it says something about you being a horrible person in everything you do, too... (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=285453#285453)
So remember folks: the games you like and the play styles you prefer say something about your morals and your being in life in general. This is not just about you liking this or that game, or preferring to play this or that way. This is about your mental well being, whether you suffer from brain damage, and ultimately, whether you are a good or bad person.
You're obviously trying to turn this into some Forge bullshit, but it's about looking how people act outside of the game and then asking them how they act within it and finding out these two things are the same.
Also lol at you stalking my posts on another board.
Also lol at old editions not being optimizable.
Every single Fighter was longsword and board or a dart spammer, and I think there was one other weapon worthy of consideration out of the... dozens? Hundreds?
Jibba touched on pole dancing already.
Fireball, nuff said.
Even though most of it came down to getting good stats or committing suicide until you did get good stats there still was optimizing... you'd just die constantly anyways due to all the instant deaths flying about.
Quote from: Benoist;587930I got news for you jibba: according to Mr. GC, you preferring AD&D 2e makes you a "basket weaver". This means you are a bad person, a loser, someone who will blame his problems on others all the time and be content with mediocrity. CharOpers, however, are objectively the better people, because they will seek to make their lives better, just like they optimize their characters for the game.
CharOpjectivists?
Quote from: Mr. GC;587939Also lol at you stalking my posts on another board.
Like you are hiding you post on the Den and there are like, zillions of threads where you are posting, which would require me to make a superhuman effort to find this gem other than... actually visiting and clicking one the first threads at the top.
Well done, Inspector Clouseau! Brilliant deduction powers! :D
Quote from: Mr. GC;587939You're obviously trying to turn this into some Forge bullshit
When you say that being a "basket weaver" is a life style and it's about the behavior of the person in general, not just gaming preferences, and that you then follow with "being an optimizer obviously makes you a better person because you'll generally seek to make your life better", what you are doing is basically saying that "basket weavers" are losers and horrible people who will do what they do in games, which to you is summarized as "blaming the DM or anybody else for their failings", in their lives also.
Ergo, that's exactly the same thing as the brain damage argument. "you prefer those games, therefore this means you are inferior to me in every possible way because I like these games and that makes me a 'good person' (TM) and this extends far beyond gaming into everything you and I do in life. You are a 'bad person' (TM). Live with it."
You are crazy, you know that? :)
Quote from: Mr. GC;587939You're obviously trying to turn this into some Forge bullshit, but it's about looking how people act outside of the game and then asking them how they act within it and finding out these two things are the same.
So its about lowest common denominator pop-psychology by the uneducated?
QuoteEvery single Fighter was longsword and board or a dart spammer, and I think there was one other weapon worthy of consideration out of the... dozens? Hundreds?
Just like every black person likes fried chicken and grape soda and every single Muslim is a terrorist right? God, B.T. was even better at
prejudice than you.
QuoteEven though most of it came down to getting good stats or committing suicide until you did get good stats there still was optimizing... you'd just die constantly anyways due to all the instant deaths flying about.
Boy, you sure had some shitty DMs.
Quote from: Benoist;587942Like you are hiding you post on the Den and there are like, zillions of threads where you are posting, which would require me to make a superhuman effort to find this gem other than... actually visiting and clicking one the first threads at the top.
Well done, Inspector Clouseau! Brilliant deduction powers! :D
Now, now, Benoist. As someone with 1800+ posts at the gaming den, you should know better than that. :rotfl:
QuoteYou are crazy, you know that? :)
Un-fucking-doubtably.
Quote from: Mr. GC;587910Better player = blow DM, or otherwise subject yourself to subjective bullshit. Um yeah. No.
Please feel free to go shit up some other thread.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;587914I'm no longer surprised to see this sort of ancient bullshit peddled on these forums.
Please feel free to go shit up some other thread.
Quote from: One Horse Town;587969Now, now, Benoist. As someone with 1800+ posts at the gaming den, you should know better than that. :rotfl:
:rotfl:
Hey, GC? Shine on, you crazy motherfucker! :D
I wonder if some of the 'groknard' churn we're seeing isn't just psychological projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).
Thesus would be something along the lines of:
1) 3e engendered a strongly pro-charop mindset/playstyle/etc
2) 4e broke away from this, specifically with tighter control over splat
3) 3e is over a decade old, and 3e enthusiasts are no longer in their prime.
4) 5e will probably not go back to the days of 3e's glory, leaving such enthusiasts facing at least another decade
So they're looking in the mirrior and are watching themselves transform into groknards. They then take to beating up on those who are fans of even older editions - specifically as a mechanism to hide their own pain. But the fact remains that 3e is an old edition, only slightly more so than 2e, particularly when 5e rolls out.
I'm not trolling here. I think this might genuinely provide some motive for all the venomous, vitroilic butthurt we've been subjected to of late...
Nah, Mr. GC is just nuts and Lord Mistborn was stupid enough to get him to hold his hand here.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587991I wonder if some of the 'groknard' churn we're seeing isn't just psychological projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).
I'm not trolling here. I think this might genuinely provide some motive for all the venomous, vitroilic butthurt we've been subjected to of late...
I would say it's more along the lines of cognitive dissonance. They have been abandoned (twice!) by WotC after assuring everyone this was the edition to end all editions.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587783It brings up a side curiousity - how would you deal with deliberately non-optimal choices in your games? E.g. character comes from a long line of basket weavers?
I'd probably advise the player that I'm not planning on touching on this topic in my campaign, and I'd make them reiterate to me that it won't wind up being a good investment. But once everyone was fully informed, I think this would be the end of it.
I don't generally play games with that level of skill granularity.
If I did, I would encourage players to only take such skills for roleplaying reasons.
As I always have, I would reward good roleplaying.
Quote from: CRKrueger;587932Or by campaigning in a living, breathing world - where in between killing things and taking their stuff, you can use those skills offstage during "downtime".
Quote from: MGuy;587915Here is a major part of the issue I just want to highlight. There are a couple of things here I wanna draw attention to:
1) There is nothing inherently "wrong" with basket weaving or having a profession in general. It is logical, thematic, and helps verisimilitude because in any functioning world there are mundane necessities and luxuries people spend money and time on producing and enjoying.
2)The problem is not that such a thing exists but that we are (at least as far as DnD is concerned) not at all hampered by not having these kind of skills and are only perhaps marginally aided by having them because in most cases having the ability to weave a basket is never going to come up even in a minor way in a campaign.
3) This problem gets worse when you take into account that learning how to basket weave directly takes away from your ability to do other, more important, and more useful skills. In point buy games basket weaving would cost much less than other,much more useful skills or abilities.
4) Basket weaving is known to be a weaker option and that can breed resentment for people not wanting to be handicapped by someone in the group choosing a domestic skill that in no way helps the group. This is exponentially worse if the person's entire character is based around it. Making characters that can't actually do anything significant to aid the adventure can be looked at as disruptive.
5) This issue is often times propagated when people put themselves into camps instead of looking at the issue in a sensible way. Some GMs will wholesale accept basket weaving antics and actually encourage them by forcibly stretching the campaign to involve the skill or stretching what the skill can actually do. Other camps will just wholly deny the same, claiming that people who do it are subhuman or being disruptive.
All these things can be solved at the design stage by either not making basket weaving a thing you can ever choose to do, making it so attempting to do it is something the GM has total control of and getting it doesn't cost you any significant resources, or by making it cost something different then what more significant abilities cost.
Bolded because the rest of the post seems to have been lost somewhere.
Quote from: MGuy;588032Bolded because the rest of the post seems to have been lost somewhere.
Did you even read my posts on basketweaving? Its a monstrously useful skill in many circumstances, which invalidates your entire point. All such skills existed for a reason, and as such may find utility in any game.
Quote from: Roger the GS;587941CharOpjectivists?
I am Lord Mistborn and I am here to ask you a question. Is a player not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
No says Mearls you should be shackled to fighter level
No says the basketweaver you're just Rollplaying
No says the grognard you should be sucking the DM's cock
I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different I chose the impossible. I chose...
D&D 3.5
A game where the player need not fear the rulebook
Where the optimizer would not be bound by petty randomness
Where the great would not be constrained by the small
and with the sweat of your brow D&D 3.5 can be your game as well.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588069I am Lord Mistborn and I am here to ask you a question. Is a player not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
No says Mearls you should be shackled to fighter level
No says the basketweaver you're just Rollplaying
No says the grognard you should be sucking the DM's cock
I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different I chose the impossible. I chose...
D&D 3.5
A game where the player need not fear the rulebook
Where the optimizer would not be bound by petty randomness
Where the great would not be constrained by the small
and with the sweat of your brow D&D 3.5 can be your game as well.
This is D&D, not the civil rights movement. All I can say is, if you have found a style of play that works for you, that is great. I hope you enjoy it. I have run optimized campaigns and had a blast. But not everyone wants that kind of play.
Your obsession with GM fellatio really makes you come off as childish.
Quote from: Benoist;587942Like you are hiding you post on the Den and there are like, zillions of threads where you are posting, which would require me to make a superhuman effort to find this gem other than... actually visiting and clicking one the first threads at the top.
Well done, Inspector Clouseau! Brilliant deduction powers! :D
At least you know how to do a basic search. That makes you better than the other fucks here.
QuoteWhen you say that being a "basket weaver" is a life style and it's about the behavior of the person in general, not just gaming preferences, and that you then follow with "being an optimizer obviously makes you a better person because you'll generally seek to make your life better", what you are doing is basically saying that "basket weavers" are losers and horrible people who will do what they do in games, which to you is summarized as "blaming the DM or anybody else for their failings", in their lives also.
They actually do that. As in literally, real life basket weavers then go on to rage about their coworker getting a higher salary (because they have more experience, more responsibilities, more competence, or otherwise deserve it) and insist their coworker be dragged back down to their level.
I got one here to admit about the only job that wouldn't fire an incompetent employee would be McDonalds. They had no problem with their character being the equivalent of a burger flipper.
QuoteErgo, that's exactly the same thing as the brain damage argument. "you prefer those games, therefore this means you are inferior to me in every possible way because I like these games and that makes me a 'good person' (TM) and this extends far beyond gaming into everything you and I do in life. You are a 'bad person' (TM). Live with it."
You are crazy, you know that? :)
No, that's retard troll logic. Not that I expected any other kind from you.
Me: You can judge what people do by what they do.
And you can say "No shit Sherlock!", but you cannot say that isn't true because that makes you a moron.
You: You can judge what people do by what they play.
Not the same thing.
Quote from: TristramEvans;587943So its about lowest common denominator pop-psychology by the uneducated?
Well you're right about it being used on the lowest common denominator at least. Progress!
QuoteJust like every black person likes fried chicken and grape soda and every single Muslim is a terrorist right? God, B.T. was even better at prejudice than you.
I'm not even going to touch the terrorist comment, but if all other foods except fried chicken were gimp you'd better believe there'd be plenty of people eating it. Hell, I'm not black and I'm going to get some fried chicken now. It's good stuff, the fuck are you bitching about?
QuoteBoy, you sure had some shitty DMs.
No, I avoided you losers.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587991I wonder if some of the 'groknard' churn we're seeing isn't just psychological projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).
Thesus would be something along the lines of:
1) 3e engendered a strongly pro-charop mindset/playstyle/etc
2) 4e broke away from this, specifically with tighter control over splat
3) 3e is over a decade old, and 3e enthusiasts are no longer in their prime.
4) 5e will probably not go back to the days of 3e's glory, leaving such enthusiasts facing at least another decade
So they're looking in the mirrior and are watching themselves transform into groknards. They then take to beating up on those who are fans of even older editions - specifically as a mechanism to hide their own pain. But the fact remains that 3e is an old edition, only slightly more so than 2e, particularly when 5e rolls out.
I'm not trolling here. I think this might genuinely provide some motive for all the venomous, vitroilic butthurt we've been subjected to of late...
4th has far more broken bullshit than 3rd. It's just that even breaking the game is boring, so no one cares that Orbizards/Infinite damage loops/etc.
3.x players are only grognards if you're a SA poster. And those guys would have a field day spamming quotes from you. They'd also have one spamming quotes from the Den, but what do you expect from such a forum?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588077This is D&D, not the civil rights movement. All I can say is, if you have found a style of play that works for you, that is great. I hope you enjoy it. I have run optimized campaigns and had a blast. But not everyone wants that kind of play.
Your obsession with GM fellatio really makes you come off as childish.
I found it hilarious. And dick jokes aside, that is the only way of getting ahead in those games. Guess what your DM is thinking and hope he likes you because if not you get "Our favorite edition is 2nd edition..."
Also, bully and bullshit the DM constantly, otherwise you will get nowhere. Not the sorts of things you should do to your friends, ya know?
Lordy
Quote from: Mr. GC;588079I found it hilarious and dick jokes aside ....
Then you and LM must be in the same class because that seriously isn't the sort of thing that people over 20 find funny. A good dick joke can be funny. But this just rises to the level of junior high dick joke.
Quote, that is the only way of getting ahead in those games. Guess what your DM is thinking and hope he likes you because if not you get "Our favorite edition is 2nd edition..."
Also, bully and bullshit the DM constantly, otherwise you will get nowhere. Not the sorts of things you should do to your friends, ya know?
I have played 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th....this doesn't match anything I have experienced for any of those editions. You are claiming "x happens if you play 2nd edition" yet I played it countless times and x didn't happen. No bullying or bullshit in the games I have run or played in.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588077This is D&D, not the civil rights movement. All I can say is, if you have found a style of play that works for you, that is great. I hope you enjoy it. I have run optimized campaigns and had a blast. But not everyone wants that kind of play.
Your obsession with GM fellatio really makes you come off as childish.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDcqn1J-zfNga9mrthd0q53cSEL-jOxuqsTGCMapgzZlTWSGKH)
Wow, flung technicolor poo, with a pietà-pose lead up. RPGs as civii rights followed by a 4-chan-poster-esque response. A new, but remarkable, low, like an interpretive dance of epileptic seizures.
It's... almost entertaining, if it wasn't tedious. :idunno:
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588085(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDcqn1J-zfNga9mrthd0q53cSEL-jOxuqsTGCMapgzZlTWSGKH)
LM, you are in no postition to dispense English lessons.
Quote from: MGuy;5879154) Basket weaving is known to be a weaker option and that can breed resentment for people not wanting to be handicapped by someone in the group choosing a domestic skill that in no way helps the group. This is exponentially worse if the person's entire character is based around it. Making characters that can't actually do anything significant to aid the adventure can be looked at as disruptive.
This is the MMO performance mentality that has infected the tabletop scene due to turdheads like this.
Does this guy's character meet the specs for his class? No? Boot him from the group and go back into the looking for more queue. :rotfl:
Congrats. You sir are the Ricky Bobby of rpgs. :rolleyes:
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588081Then you and LM must be in the same class because that seriously isn't the sort of thing that people over 20 find funny. A good dick joke can be funny. But this just rises to the level of junior high dick joke.
Generally when someone says an idea, then says and, then starts talking about something else that something else is a different idea.
Sure enough, I said:
1: I found [the civil rights movement speech for optimizers] hilarious.
2: Dick jokes aside (meaning, jokes about blowing your DM aside) getting ahead in earlier editions...
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588088LM, you are in no postition to dispense English lessons.
You know, since you're now the grammar police and all.
QuoteI have played 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th....this doesn't match anything I have experienced for any of those editions. You are claiming "x happens if you play 2nd edition" yet I played it countless times and x didn't happen. No bullying or bullshit in the games I have run or played in.
It's true in first and second. In 3.x only basket weavers have to bully the DM since you can actually succeed within the game.
Or if you'd prefer, pre 3rd everyone is a basket weaver.
MMOs didn't invent /kick gimp.
In fact most of the early ones didn't allow you many choices so you could only fuck up your character by not passing the gearchecks.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588099You know, since you're now the grammar police and all.
.
No. Attacking people's writing or reading comprehension is one of the lowest forms of posting. I am never critical of other peoples' grammar because I mostly post from my Ipad and therefore my posts are filled with typos. But if LordMistborn is going to accuse me of failing at English, his inability to construct a clear sentence becomes fair game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588111No. Attacking people's writing or reading comprehension is one of the lowest forms of posting. I am never critical of other peoples' grammar because I mostly post from my Ipad and therefore my posts are filled with typos. But if LordMistborn is going to accuse me of failing at English, his inability to construct a clear sentence becomes fair game.
So what is misunderstanding my post to mean something it clearly does not then?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588114So what is misunderstanding my post to mean something it clearly does not then?
It means you really need to start making coherent posts. Perhaps getting back on the medication would help. Sacro posting random words made more sense than your recent word salads.
Quote from: Mr. GC4th has far more broken bullshit than 3rd. It's just that even breaking the game is boring, so no one cares that Orbizards/Infinite damage loops/etc.
3.x players are only grognards if you're a SA poster. And those guys would have a field day spamming quotes from you. They'd also have one spamming quotes from the Den, but what do you expect from such a forum?
Notice I gave no mention of broken bullshit, so this observation of yours is out of context.
Is it your position that 4e DOES support deck building on the same manner that 3e did?
I don't know what an 'SA' poster is, but when 3e was launched, George Bush was president, the Towers were still standing, and T1's were pretty fast.
Time marches on, and unless you abandon 3e for the flavor of the month, you WILL eventually be a groknard. This is simply the way of things.
Quote from: mcbobbo;588146Notice I gave no mention of broken bullshit, so this observation of yours is out of context.
Is it your position that 4e DOES support deck building on the same manner that 3e did?
I don't know what an 'SA' poster is, but when 3e was launched, George Bush was president, the Towers were still standing, and T1's were pretty fast.
Time marches on, and unless you abandon 3e for the flavor of the month, you WILL eventually be a groknard. This is simply the way of things.
You called it better balanced. It isn't.
4th edition is far more about standardized builds than 3.5, due in large part to there being far fewer viable builds.
SA = Something Awful, best known for taking all manner of pre 4th edition posts particularly those that say bad things about 4th edition and put them in a massive clusterfuck thread.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;588090This is the MMO performance mentality that has infected the tabletop scene due to turdheads like this.
Exactly.
If one of these jokers ever had to try to think their way out of a situation in an Old School dungeon that required actual imagination and creativity to resolve (like White Plume Mountain, frex) without being able to rely on their CCG PowerDeck character to solve the problem by merely rolling a die without having to think they'd be reduced to tears.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588149You called it better balanced. It isn't.
4th edition is far more about standardized builds than 3.5, due in large part to there being far fewer viable builds.
SA = Something Awful, best known for taking all manner of pre 4th edition posts particularly those that say bad things about 4th edition and put them in a massive clusterfuck thread.
Notice, I never made that claim. I won't discuss it, as it is imaginary.
What I did say was they deliberately took steps away from deck building.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Also, 3e was launched 5 full years before YouTube...
Quote from: Doctor Jest;588151Exactly.
If one of these jokers ever had to try to think their way out of a situation in an Old School dungeon that required actual imagination and creativity to resolve (like White Plume Mountain, frex) without being able to rely on their CCG PowerDeck character to solve the problem by merely rolling a die without having to think they'd be reduced to tears.
Your definition of imagination and creativity - guess what the DM is thinking, read his notes, or suck his cock.
Actual imagination and creativity - having the actual abilities to solve problems on your own without the DM nicely allowing you to but instead just playing the game and succeeding at it.
mcbobbo: Lolwut. 4th edition is the game where you straight up copy paste standard characters and use standard DPS rotations with the standard stats and standard races and standard powers... less about deck building? Only in the world where giant frog is considered the epitome of coherency... meaning you can convince the grogs of that easily enough, but not me.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588159mcbobbo: Lolwut. 4th edition is the game where you straight up copy paste standard characters and use standard DPS rotations with the standard stats and standard races and standard powers... less about deck building? Only in the world where giant frog is considered the epitome of coherency... meaning you can convince the grogs of that easily enough, but not me.
I don't think we're using that term in the same way. Read this, it matches my use and may help you follow :
http://montecook.mulehill.com/line-of-sight/ivory-tower-game-design
Does 4e contain as many 'Timmy cards'? Does it attempt to 'reward rules mastery'?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588159Your definition of imagination and creativity - guess what the DM is thinking, read his notes, or suck his cock.
Nope, nope, and nope. The fact that you believe that demonstrates your lack of imagination right there.
You made my case for me. I cited White Plume Mountain as an example. What part of that fits your assertion? Oh wait, you wouldn't know since you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.
Of course, I am sure you speak from experience and have sucked alot of DM cocks so you have an obsession with that, but hey, that's YOUR problem.
QuoteActual imagination and creativity - having the actual abilities to solve problems on your own without the DM nicely allowing you to but instead just playing the game and succeeding at it.
No, that's what I am talking about, being able to think your way out of the problem. You are incapable of that. You have to try to win the game with your character build alone because you suck at actual play. If you need to deck build your way out of a problem, then you suck. As a player, you could be replaced by a dice roller app in actual play and no one would notice.
Put you in a situation where ingenuity is required and you'd just shrivel up and
beg to suck DM cock.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588159Actual imagination and creativity - having the actual abilities to solve problems on your own without the DM nicely allowing you to but instead just playing the game and succeeding at it.
Judging by your history here, I can say with a good deal of certainty that your experience with 'success' approaches zero.
Quote from: mcbobbo;588164I don't think we're using that term in the same way. Read this, it matches my use and may help you follow :
http://montecook.mulehill.com/line-of-sight/ivory-tower-game-design
Does 4e contain as many 'Timmy cards'? Does it attempt to 'reward rules mastery'?
Yes, and hell fucking yes. The game becomes literally unplayable if you don't optimize everything and even if you do, you still become less effective at everything as you get stronger.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;588165Nope, nope, and nope. The fact that you believe that demonstrates your lack of imagination right there.
You made my case for me.
Of course, I am sure you speak from experience and have sucked alot of DM cocks so you have an obsession with that, but hey, that's YOUR problem.
No, that's what I am talking about, being able to think your way out of the problem. You are incapable of that. You have to try to win the game with your character build alone because you suck at actual play. If you need to deck build your way out of a problem, then you suck. As a player, you could be replaced by a dice roller app in actual play and no one would notice.
Put you in a situation where ingenuity is required and you'd just shrivel up and beg to suck DM cock.
Typical basket weaver.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588167Typical basket weaver.
Available now from iTunes: the GC player replacement app. Use this app at your table and it is just like having GC as a player! It rolls dice and uses terms like "gimp" and "basket weaver" randomly in place of any meaningful discourse!
It's free, of course. Who'd pay for that?
Soon to be available in the GC 2.0 version, it will suck the DM's cock in any situation where actual player skill would be required!
Quote from: Doctor Jest;588165As a player, you could be replaced by a dice roller app in actual play and no one would notice.
I would guess the group could actually get things done, and there wouldn't be the incessant sobbing from the corner. People would probably notice that. ;)
I've been gaming since 1981. I have never sucked a DM's cock. I've DM'd most of that time. I have never had my cock sucked by a player. Man, nobody ever told me that that was a perk!
I do recall one time in 1982 or 83 (I can't recall which), where a player gave the DM a plate of turkey in return for a favorable item. But that was because we were 10 years old, and that's the sort of stuff dumb ass kids do. All I can say is that if that's the type of experience you have with DMs, stop playing with fucking kids.
There is a skill called Basket-weaving in FATAL. {I know this because out of morbid curiosity I had a look at the 10-page "character sheets" just a moment ago.}
Therefore, if you are a basket-weaver, you may be a character in a game of FATAL.
If male, this would apparently make you 50% likely to be a rapist. If female, it's not looking pretty.
Quote from: StormBringer;588173I would guess the group could actually get things done, and there wouldn't be the incessant sobbing from the corner. People would probably notice that. ;)
Technology making your life easier. :)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588174I've been gaming since 1981. I have never sucked a DM's cock. I've DM'd most of that time. I have never had my cock sucked by a player. Man, nobody ever told me that that was a perk!
The downside is you'd have have it sucked by GC.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588167Yes, and hell fucking yes. The game becomes literally unplayable if you don't optimize everything and even if you do, you still become less effective at everything as you get stronger.
Deck building and optimization aren't the same thing. Optimization simply means getting the best mileage you can. Again, you could be highly optimized at weaving baskets.
Deck building means having access to choice pieces of splat (booster packs), knowing and avoiding the trap options, and knowledge of the entire ruleset to the point of predicting the impact of all the possible synergies.
I understand that 3e is a deck building paradise. I have read that 4e is not.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588174I've DM'd most of that time. I have never had my cock sucked by a player. Man, nobody ever told me that that was a perk!
This is why I started frequenting these internet RPG forums, to learn the little quirks and foibles of the wider hobby.
Quote from: mcbobbo;588186Deck building means having access to choice pieces of splat (booster packs), knowing and avoiding the trap options, and knowledge of the entire ruleset to the point of predicting the impact of all the possible synergies.
I understand that 3e is a deck building paradise. I have read that 4e is not.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRk3e2H5boCqCnAEVXqGnUDVPhPnohlL06qtmRpvrEp1FyjweQ)
Quote from: Doctor Jest;588184The downside is you'd have have it sucked by GC.
I imagine the inside of his mouth feels the same as any other woman's. The only problem (if I'm guessing correctly), is that I'd be arrested for statutory rape.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588195I imagine the inside of his mouth feels the same as any other woman's.
I'd rather not speculate.
Although, given the extensive experience he must have with sucking DM cock, based on how often he mentions it as the only option available to him, he's likely gotten skilled at it.
QuoteThe only problem (if I'm guessing correctly), is that I'd be arrested for statutory rape.
True, true.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588194(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRk3e2H5boCqCnAEVXqGnUDVPhPnohlL06qtmRpvrEp1FyjweQ)
Confirmed, then.
You do fear becoming a groknard.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;588165No, that's what I am talking about, being able to think your way out of the problem. You are incapable of that. You have to try to win the game with your character build alone because you suck at actual play. If you need to deck build your way out of a problem, then you suck. As a player, you could be replaced by a dice roller app in actual play and no one would notice.
Put you in a situation where ingenuity is required and you'd just shrivel up and beg to suck DM cock.
It's sad that all I have to do is quote you idiots at each other.
This is what "player ingenuity" actually looks like.
Quote from: Omnifray;588128What's more, as a player, you inevitably get to know how your GM's mind works. If you are truly a skilful player you may be able to read your GM like an open book.
...
I certainly have one player at least who can generally read me like an open book. At the conclusion of a recent campaign I *nearly* had him with a trick of mine, but he saved himself in the nick of time. And in other aspects, it was a joy to watch him figuring stuff out unprompted.
If you are not using your characters abilities then your success is down to GM fiat. So yeah you better be getting in his head and on his good side if you want to do anything.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588203If you are not using your characters abilities then your success is down to GM fiat. So yeah you better be getting in his head and on his good side if you want to do anything.
What do I roll to speak in character?
Quote from: mcbobbo;588186Deck building and optimization aren't the same thing. Optimization simply means getting the best mileage you can. Again, you could be highly optimized at weaving baskets.
Deck building means having access to choice pieces of splat (booster packs), knowing and avoiding the trap options, and knowledge of the entire ruleset to the point of predicting the impact of all the possible synergies.
I understand that 3e is a deck building paradise. I have read that 4e is not.
You have read... wrongly. We are literally talking about the game where they nerfed a class via errata and then published a new, similar class in a new book at about the same time. Fuck you Runepriests, fuck you.
We are literally talking about a game where if you pick the wrong class/race/stats/builds/feats/items you are outright incapable of hitting level appropriate enemies and wouldn't do jack even if you did hit.
In 3.x it depends on what you are playing. Full casters work even core only and don't benefit THAT much from non core (it's really hard to improve upon what is already awesome), non casters have to assemble a bunch of junk together from many different sources but it still has nothing on 4th edition.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588203If you are not using your characters abilities then your success is down to GM fiat. So yeah you better be getting in his head and on his good side if you want to do anything.
In his head or on it.
What these fucks are missing is that if I wanted to have my succeed based on my ability to manipulate others, I'd win old school D&D forever right now. Thing is though?
I don't treat my friends that way.I'm completely fine with maneuvering some dumbfucks on the internet into self destructing, but my friends are people that I treat with the utmost respect. So when a game tells you "be a dick to your friends or don't play this game"... well the only way to win is not to play.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588209I don't treat my friends that way.
That's because
you don't have any friends.
QuoteI'm completely fine with maneuvering some dumbfucks on the internet into self destructing...
You must mean you are completely fine watching someone else do that, because you clearly can't even maneuver food into your cock holster without significant assistance.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588203...
If you are not using your characters abilities then your success is down to GM fiat. So yeah you better be getting in his head and on his good side if you want to do anything.
Look, I'm genuinely sorry that you've only ever had really bad GMs.
I can see why someone with that experience would want the DMG to tell the GM how difficult an encounter ought to be, and what Challenge Rating of monsters to throw at the party.
But honestly, and I make this comment in good faith and sincerely, get yourself to a gaming convention and play a variety of totally different games, not D&D 3rd edition or 4th nor any variant of them, not Pathfinder, not d20, not OGL. Play games under a variety of different GMs. Play some RuneQuest, some WHFRP 2e, some Call of Cthulhu [God, you'd probably vom playing that], play some Amber Diceless (which I've never played but still), play some Vampire: the Requiem, just play some different stuff.
Put all your preconceptions aside and just play the games for what they are. Without worrying about what's mechanically optimal or whether the rules are doing a good job. Just let it all go and see if you have a fun ride.
Maybe you'll get lucky, get a great GM and see how different things can be.
Edited to add:- PS, also, play some LARP. I mean, OK so that's my standard answer to everything, but seriously, play some LARP. But don't go mouthing off about the rules like you're doing here or you'll just get shunned.
Quote from: StormBringer;588216That's because you don't have any friends.
Sorry to disappoint you empty wind boy, but not everyone shares your distaste for competence and intelligence. Most prefer it in their fellow people, though tabletop gaming mostly gets the bad people.
That said, I have a mutual respect for non idiots.
I also love how all the games Omni mentioned consist of the DM fucking with the player in some blatantly obvious way. As if that would help anyone be convinced this should not be happening because they don't like it.
Quote from: mcbobbo;588205What do I roll to speak in character?
You roll a save vs whatever is keeping you from speaking.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588223Sorry to disappoint you empty wind boy, but not everyone shares your distaste for competence and intelligence.
No, I just dislike people who pretend competence and intelligence. Luckily, they are pretty easy to spot. They say absolutely moronic things like "Weighted averages are intellectually dishonest".
QuoteMost prefer it in their fellow people, though tabletop gaming mostly gets the bad people.
Of which you are the ultimate example.
QuoteThat said, I have a mutual respect for non idiots.
You wouldn't recognize one if they were pointed out to you.
QuoteI also love how all the games Omni mentioned consist of the DM fucking with the player in some blatantly obvious way. As if that would help anyone be convinced this should not be happening because they don't like it.
What I really love is how the games Omni mentioned
don't have DMs. Also, how you continue to talk about games other than D&D like you have even the slightest clue about them. Case in point: You have no reference point for the referee in other games, and the only term you know of is "DM".
I really don't get the whole "I only associate with people of above average intelligence" thing. I see it alot on forums, and not just from denners like GC and LM. But to me it is the height of elitism to talk about people with lower IQs as if they are subhuman. I can happily game with people who are more intelligent than me, of the same intelligence or equal to me (I also don't think intelligence is something that is so black and white that one is simply higher or lower than others----there is a good deal of texture to intelligence). If you are denying yourself the company of great gamers who might be a lot of fun at the table over something like this, I think you are seriously missing out. For me it is more about whether people are interesting, nice and fun than whether they can score well on an IQ test.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588203.
If you are not using your characters abilities then your success is down to GM fiat. So yeah you better be getting in his head and on his good side if you want to do anything.
Demonstrably not true, and what more, I cited an actual example. White. Plume. Mountain.
That is a published adventure with multiple situations where actual Player Skill - NOT character abilities, NOT GM Fiat - are essential to success. You'd die 10' from the entrance if you even were allowed to read the thing in advance because you suck so hard.
The reason you cannot imagine player skill existing is simply because
you don't possess any.You're a random number generator, and nothing more.
Name one thing you've done in an RPG, at the actual table, that didn't involve you looking up a number on your character sheet then rolling a certain number or higher on a die that actually made a difference in the game? Because if that's all you can do, you can be replaced by a web app.
If you ever had to play with out your power deck build character or do something outside of beat a target number with them, you'd fall right on your unimaginative, skill-less, ass. Because by the time your done making your character your entire contribution to the ga,e as a player is done. Before the fucking game even starts.
You don't even need to show up at the table. You could email your stat block to the GM, and they could push a button on a smartphone they keep at your place on the table, and it'd be the same play experience except for the added benefit of actually having to put up with your assholery.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588231I really don't get the whole "I only associate with people of above average intelligence" thing.
It's a cack-handed, feeble tactic to claim superiority in the face of overwhelming evidence against. The last defence to shore up a sagging ego that is constitutionally incapable of admitting "I don't know" instead of spouting easily refuted nonsense that only causes further frustration and lashing out.
Quote from: Doctor Jest;588233Demonstrably not true, and what more, I cited an actual example. White. Plume. Mountain.
I haven't been paying attention to most of this conversation but this post does ruffle my feathers. The thought that having abilities that are useful makes someone unimaginative is provably false. I've said it before but what I'm curious about is what is White Plume Mountain and what do you do in it that requires only player skill where nothing on their character sheet is actually a factor in bypassing the challenges there-in.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588231I really don't get the whole "I only associate with people of above average intelligence" thing. I see it alot on forums, and not just from denners like GC and LM. But to me it is the height of elitism to talk about people with lower IQs as if they are subhuman. I can happily game with people who are more intelligent than me, of the same intelligence or equal to me (I also don't think intelligence is something that is so black and white that one is simply higher or lower than others----there is a good deal of texture to intelligence). If you are denying yourself the company of great gamers who might be a lot of fun at the table over something like this, I think you are seriously missing out. For me it is more about whether people are interesting, nice and fun than whether they can score well on an IQ test.
It has nothing to do with IQ tests and everything to do with being able to grasp concepts and learn.
Now it's true that I only associate with above average players when it comes time to actually play a game. Intelligence wise though, even average will do but more is better. I do regard stupid people, or more precisely idiots as subhuman as idiots can learn but choose not to do so. Learning (and subsequently adapting) on a large scale is what separates humans from every other animal, so people that do not exhibit this trait literally have nothing to show for themselves as people. Especially since many animals can and do learn on smaller scales and therefore they deserve less respect than pet dogs.
Whatever their reasons or motivations people that cannot learn also cannot be good company at anything, especially not a game that requires learning.
So yes, when some guy like Stormbringer spouts off about there being no worthless classes when there demonstrably are, and many at that they're giving the initial impression they have no idea what they are talking about and this soon expanded into full scale stupidity. I am missing nothing by excluding them, or refusing to lower my game standards in the slightest such that any character they'd make will die horribly in seconds. I am gaining quite a bit though.
If guys like Stormbringer were smart, they'd figure out the actual ways to make worthless classes not worthless, if it were possible at all instead of just making empty claims that will be immediately disregarded as more basket weaver bullshit. They'd do something like the Truenamer of Epicness, where they take a class even more worthless than the Fighter, and make it actually very good. They could not do this though because even if they found a way to make Fighter levels not worthless it'd still be the base creature doing all the heavy lifting. There'd be no real synergy. Whereas Truenamers, terrible as they are actually do stuff that isn't summarized as attack for HP damage or impose a very minor status effect. And so it is possible to actually get relevant use out of them... it's just exceedingly unlikely, and impossible in most standard scenarios.
Quote from: MGuy;588261I haven't been paying attention to most of this conversation but this post does ruffle my feathers. The thought that having abilities that are useful makes someone unimaginative is provably false. I've said it before but what I'm curious about is what is White Plume Mountain and what do you do in it that requires only player skill where nothing on their character sheet is actually a factor in bypassing the challenges there-in.
I'm gonna +1 to this. Having looked over the module a bit I can think of plenty of things on my standard character sheet that would be pretty useful.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588263It has nothing to do with IQ tests and everything to do with being able to grasp concepts and learn.
It's like rain on your wedding day.
QuoteSo yes, when some guy like Stormbringer spouts off about there being no worthless classes when there demonstrably are...
Except there aren't. 'Demonstrably' means 'it can be demonstrated'. You haven't, not even remotely. This is one of those times when the person making the claim has the burden of proof.
QuoteIf guys like Stormbringer were smart, they'd figure out the actual ways to make worthless classes not worthless...
That would be impossible; as I have stated, there are no worthless classes.
(Which, before you make a mess in your pants, is a refutation of your unsupported original claim. Since you have not even made the attempt to prove your claim, stating the negation is sufficient.)However, if you find you are experiencing a great deal of failure with a particular class, simply stop being a shitty player.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588079I got one here to admit about the only job that wouldn't fire an incompetent employee would be McDonalds. They had no problem with their character being the equivalent of a burger flipper.
Obvious liar is obvious.
QuoteWell you're right about it being used on the lowest common denominator at least. Progress!
So if real life behaviour and game behaviour are synonymous in your view,that means....you spend your entire game ineptly trolling chatrooms?
QuoteNo, I avoided you losers.
Bitter because the adults wouldn't let you play with them huh?
Quote from: MGuy;588261I haven't been paying attention to most of this conversation but this post does ruffle my feathers. The thought that having abilities that are useful makes someone unimaginative is provably false. I've said it before but what I'm curious about is what is White Plume Mountain and what do you do in it that requires only player skill where nothing on their character sheet is actually a factor in bypassing the challenges there-in.
95% chance he's just making up more bullshit but in case he got a 20 I'm checking. I made it as far as the random encounter tables before bursting out laughing.
Every 10 minutes, 1:12 chance for one of the following:
1: 1 Fuck you, your gear is getting eaten, immune: most of your attacks.
2: 2-5 Fuck yous, you're getting surprised half the time.
3: 2 Fuck yous, immune: non magical weapons and high enough damage to 1-2 round the level 5 PCs it is assuming.
4: 1 Fuck you, you are almost always surprised by an invisible attacker.
5: 1-3 I'm sorry for all the fuck you monsters, come back to me so I can abuse you mores.
6: 1-2 Fuck you, lose a level forever on every hits with Immune: Non magic non silver weapons and a bunch of other stuff.
Not a single thing says anything about creativity and player skill, in fact you must have these mechanical abilities to even try is hardcoded into it.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588280Not a single thing says anything about creativity and player skill, in fact you must have these mechanical abilities to even try is hardcoded into it.
Translation:
"I can only handle a game where everything is stacked heavily in my favour with open weeping taking care of the rest. Hysterically sobbed rules lawyering is the result of these being denied."
Quote from: StormBringer;588286Translation:
"I can only handle a game where everything is stacked heavily in my favour with open weeping taking care of the rest. Hysterically sobbed rules lawyering is the result of these being denied."
Hi Welcome
Quote from: Mr. GC;58828095% chance he's just making up more bullshit but in case he got a 20 I'm checking. I made it as far as the random encounter tables before bursting out laughing.
Every 10 minutes, 1:12 chance for one of the following:
1: 1 Fuck you, your gear is getting eaten, immune: most of your attacks.
2: 2-5 Fuck yous, you're getting surprised half the time.
3: 2 Fuck yous, immune: non magical weapons and high enough damage to 1-2 round the level 5 PCs it is assuming.
4: 1 Fuck you, you are almost always surprised by an invisible attacker.
5: 1-3 I'm sorry for all the fuck you monsters, come back to me so I can abuse you mores.
6: 1-2 Fuck you, lose a level forever on every hits with Immune: Non magic non silver weapons and a bunch of other stuff.
Not a single thing says anything about creativity and player skill, in fact you must have these mechanical abilities to even try is hardcoded into it.
So I went to the next page. After some uneventful stuff, and some forced metagaming, there's a fuck you you die and can't be raised encounter specifically designed to surprise the party, not even have them be aware they are being attacked until it is too late or be taken out via the usual method, instead having to rely upon your one singular Fireball ability (hey look, more actual abilities) or you just lose.
You then get trapped in a cage with stat saccing enemies and you can't get out via any means other than the key, which they explicitly state and also go well out of their way to state that even if you have the actual abilities to understand what you're supposed to do in the cage those will not detect the ambush.
We're only four rooms in and we've already hit plenty of fuck you, have the right ability or die and only one instance of forced metagaming (which they'd probably call player skill, while at the same time bitching about metagamers).
Quote from: Mr. GC;588306So I went to the next page. After some uneventful stuff, and some forced metagaming, there's a fuck you you die and can't be raised encounter specifically designed to surprise the party, not even have them be aware they are being attacked until it is too late or be taken out via the usual method, instead having to rely upon your one singular Fireball ability (hey look, more actual abilities) or you just lose.
You then get trapped in a cage with stat saccing enemies and you can't get out via any means other than the key, which they explicitly state and also go well out of their way to state that even if you have the actual abilities to understand what you're supposed to do in the cage those will not detect the ambush.
We're only four rooms in and we've already hit plenty of fuck you, have the right ability or die and only one instance of forced metagaming (which they'd probably call player skill, while at the same time bitching about metagamers).
So this is another old school adventure where the best thing to do is have an all caster party. (then again even that probably isn't enough to counter that much fuck you.)
Quote from: Mr. GC;588288Hi Welcome
Clever. Thanks for making sure everyone can read my reply twice, though.
Quote from: StormBringer;588322Clever. Thanks for making sure everyone can read my reply twice, though.
It is really. It treats you with the level of thought and respect you deserve and then moves on.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588324It is really. It treats you with the level of thought and respect you deserve and then moves on.
Oh, clearly. I mean, posting my response up there a second time while you shit your pants really showed me a good one!
Quote from: Doctor Jest;588151Exactly.
If one of these jokers ever had to try to think their way out of a situation in an Old School dungeon that required actual imagination and creativity to resolve (like White Plume Mountain, frex) without being able to rely on their CCG PowerDeck character to solve the problem by merely rolling a die without having to think they'd be reduced to tears.
Since I seem to be lumped in with these 'jokers', I'd like to point out that I went through White Plume Mountain coverted to 3rd edition. Since I wasn't the DM, I don't know how everything could have gone, but I do know that my dwarf was able to get the party past a pool of green slime with stone Platform Shoes.
That alone was worth it.
Quote from: Mr. GC;58828095% chance he's just making up more bullshit but in case he got a 20 I'm checking. I made it as far as the random encounter tables before bursting out laughing.
Every 10 minutes, 1:12 chance for one of the following:
1: 1 Fuck you, your gear is getting eaten, immune: most of your attacks.
2: 2-5 Fuck yous, you're getting surprised half the time.
3: 2 Fuck yous, immune: non magical weapons and high enough damage to 1-2 round the level 5 PCs it is assuming.
4: 1 Fuck you, you are almost always surprised by an invisible attacker.
5: 1-3 I'm sorry for all the fuck you monsters, come back to me so I can abuse you mores.
6: 1-2 Fuck you, lose a level forever on every hits with Immune: Non magic non silver weapons and a bunch of other stuff.
Not a single thing says anything about creativity and player skill, in fact you must have these mechanical abilities to even try is hardcoded into it.
Please realize that most of the people here think that if you run the adventure
as written that you're doing it wrong. Those 'fuck yous' are only to be used if your party is being 'uppity' or something. A good DM knows when to be nice and reduce the challenges so the party can make it through, but later point out difficult it was. Ribbons all around!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588375Please realize that most of the people here think that if you run the adventure as written that you're doing it wrong. Those 'fuck yous' are only to be used if your party is being 'uppity' or something. A good DM knows when to be nice and reduce the challenges so the party can make it through, but later point out difficult it was. Ribbons all around!
I know, it's like... the participation generation!
Quote from: Mr. GC;588377I know, it's like... the participation generation!
The guy who thinks that losing a point of CoN due to resurrection is complaining. Priceless :D
Quote from: StormBringer;588229They say absolutely moronic things like "Weighted averages are intellectually dishonest".
I meant to respond to this in my last post, but I forgot. I saw your reference in another thread (locked now) so I figured I'd respond.
Assuming, for a moment, that a rogue has a HD of d6, the average roll would be 3.5. So a 2 HD thief would have 7 hit points on average. You're right about that, and you're right when you say that if you roll d6s thousands of times and average them together, you'll get 3.5 as the average roll.
That said, in 1d6+1d6 it is just as possible to get any single number each time you roll. If you roll a 1 on the 1st roll, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling anything on the second. If you happen to roll a 6 (16.67% chance) you'll average 3.5. If you roll anything else, you won't. That's hardly surprising, is it?
So a weighted average can be 'dishonest' if you aren't rolling thousands of times. If you happen to have a 2 hit point Thief at 1st level (possible with no bonus hit points for Con), you're very likely to die.
And while a longsword against a medium opponent might deal 4.5
on average in a given combat, it may matter whether it rolls high or rolls low.
That's why we don't substitute 'average rolls' for 'actual rolls'. The differences from average, while over the course of the campaign appearing to approach the average, actually make the game function. A nat 20 or a nat 1, while averaging 10.5, each affect the game very differently.
If you ignore that fact, you're being intellectually dishonest.
Now, there is a place for weighted averages, but if you're rolling straight dice for hit points, you have to recognize that 2d6 is 2 as often as it's 12. Over many levels, it will
probably average 3.5, but the differences from the average
in the short term can be very important - and they may be the difference between having a chance and being 'guaranteed a short life'.
Of course, we'd expect the DM to 'have pity' and allow you to either re-roll or take the average right?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588393I meant to respond to this in my last post, but I forgot. I saw your reference in another thread (locked now) so I figured I'd respond.
Assuming, for a moment, that a rogue has a HD of d6, the average roll would be 3.5. So a 2 HD thief would have 7 hit points on average. You're right about that, and you're right when you say that if you roll d6s thousands of times and average them together, you'll get 3.5 as the average roll.
That said, in 1d6+1d6 it is just as possible to get any single number each time you roll. If you roll a 1 on the 1st roll, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling anything on the second. If you happen to roll a 6 (16.67% chance) you'll average 3.5. If you roll anything else, you won't. That's hardly surprising, is it?
So a weighted average can be 'dishonest' if you aren't rolling thousands of times. If you happen to have a 2 hit point Thief at 1st level (possible with no bonus hit points for Con), you're very likely to die.
And while a longsword against a medium opponent might deal 4.5 on average in a given combat, it may matter whether it rolls high or rolls low.
That's why we don't substitute 'average rolls' for 'actual rolls'. The differences from average, while over the course of the campaign appearing to approach the average, actually make the game function. A nat 20 or a nat 1, while averaging 10.5, each affect the game very differently.
If you ignore that fact, you're being intellectually dishonest.
Now, there is a place for weighted averages, but if you're rolling straight dice for hit points, you have to recognize that 2d6 is 2 as often as it's 12. Over many levels, it will probably average 3.5, but the differences from the average in the short term can be very important - and they may be the difference between having a chance and being 'guaranteed a short life'.
Of course, we'd expect the DM to 'have pity' and allow you to either re-roll or take the average right?
See, he gets it. The reason why weighted averages are intellectually dishonest in D&D is because combat, or anything really doesn't last long enough to make anything other than individual iterations matter.
So when a level 1 thief with 6 HP falls into a 10 foot pit, he doesn't take 3.5 damage and always live. He takes 6 damage 1/6th of the time and just dies, or is out of the adventure for basically forever if you'd prefer and takes 1-5 damage and thereby survives the rest.
Also...
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53702
This is for all the people talking about White Plume Mountain. I went ahead and dealt with that there so it wouldn't be drowned in idiotic responses.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588393That said, in 1d6+1d6 it is just as possible to get any single number each time you roll. If you roll a 1 on the 1st roll, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling anything on the second. If you happen to roll a 6 (16.67% chance) you'll average 3.5. If you roll anything else, you won't. That's hardly surprising, is it?
I am assuming you haven't quite realized how probabilities work, or you wouldn't have even considered typing that first sentence. 2d6 isn't two linear rolls, no matter how you try to completely fuck up the explanation.
QuoteSo a weighted average can be 'dishonest' if you aren't rolling thousands of times. If you happen to have a 2 hit point Thief at 1st level (possible with no bonus hit points for Con), you're very likely to die.
No, math-failure, you don't have to roll thousands of times. That's pretty much the point.
QuoteAnd while a longsword against a medium opponent might deal 4.5 on average in a given combat, it may matter whether it rolls high or rolls low.
Jesus, you have no clue how math works, do you?
QuoteThat's why we don't substitute 'average rolls' for 'actual rolls'. The differences from average, while over the course of the campaign appearing to approach the average, actually make the game function. A nat 20 or a nat 1, while averaging 10.5, each affect the game very differently.
Keep digging.
QuoteIf you ignore that fact, you're being intellectually dishonest.
No, if you try to weasel a bullshit explanation that flat out demonstrates you are terrible at math, that is being just plain dishonest.
QuoteNow, there is a place for weighted averages, but if you're rolling straight dice for hit points, you have to recognize that 2d6 is 2 as often as it's 12. Over many levels, it will probably average 3.5, but the differences from the average in the short term can be very important - and they may be the difference between having a chance and being 'guaranteed a short life'.
Holy shit you are a complete fucking moron. Tell you what, if you want to delete your post and replace it with a picture of a kitten, I will delete this post without prejudice.
Two and twelve come up as often as each other because they are at the
extremis of the bell curve. Care to guess the odds of them coming up? You know what comes up far, far more often than either two or twelve?
Seriously, I need to start charging for this tutoring in basic stuff you people should have picked up in elementary school.
It's fucking math. It's not interpretive like those art classes you cruised through on where you can bullshit the instructor for an A.
QuoteOf course, we'd expect the DM to 'have pity' and allow you to either re-roll or take the average right?
I would expect you to take come math classes before spouting off about probabilities. But that is too much to ask, apparently.
My God, the ignorance and vehement defence thereof is simply breathtaking.
Quote from: StormBringer;588434I would expect you to take come math classes before spouting off about probabilities. But that is too much to ask, apparently.
My God, the ignorance and vehement defence thereof is simply breathtaking.
Ummm.....deadDM is correct that each roll in D&D is a discrete roll. No edition of which I am aware uses averages. What is mathematically incorrect about that?
Quote from: Old One Eye;588440Ummm.....deadDM is correct that each roll in D&D is a discrete roll. No edition of which I am aware uses averages. What is mathematically incorrect about that?
Fireball damage.
Look, if you are rolling more than one die for any reason at all, it's a bell curve. Period. You may end up rolling second level hit points days, months or weeks later; it's still a bell curve because you are adding them. And if you are adding them, you can figure the average. The only way they could be discrete is if you rolled a d6 at first level, then replaced that with another d6 roll at 2nd level and used that instead. Or if you use a d66 roll or something. d% is actually linear, but 2d10 is not.
So, if you want to talk about Thieves, you can use the cumbersome phrase "Thieves can have either one hit point or six hit points at first level, which compares favourably with the Cleric, who can have either one hit point or eight hit points at first level." Except, everyone already knows that because of the "dX" notation. Rather than sit around doe-eyed at the innumerable possibilities, we just shorthand it and say "Thieves average 3.5 hit points per level, while Clerics average 4.5 hit points per level." Which is far more useful for talking about the two classes than trying to puzzle out all the possible combinations of hit points as though math doesn't have a way to save us the time.
For any individual Thief that is actually being played? Yeah, you obviously don't use averages unless you are curious if you are ahead of or behind the curve. You roll each level, add Con bonus and get back to playing. No one has suggested using averages in normal play as a routine matter. But when you are talking about game design or aspects of play, using the averages keeps from having to enumerate every possibility for sword damage.
EDIT: I hope this didn't come off as aggressive, I am assuming you are asking in good faith.
Quote from: Old One Eye;588440Ummm.....deadDM is correct that each roll in D&D is a discrete roll. No edition of which I am aware uses averages. What is mathematically incorrect about that?
Don't bother. Storm has declared himself "eternal master of math and logic" and any discussion with him will result in him flailing at you then claiming victory. Trust me I've tried to engage with him and real logic just doesn't happen in his solipsistic personal reality. The best thing to do when Storm is posting is just watch the trainwreck and try not to get involved
Quote from: Mr. GC;588404See, he gets it. The reason why weighted averages are intellectually dishonest in D&D is because combat, or anything really doesn't last long enough to make anything other than individual iterations matter.
I just wanted to drop in here and help you out:
Basic statistics (averages) are certainly applicable to D&D, just as they are to any game that uses uses dice or other randomizers. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about using the to understand the likely outcome of any die roll or set of die rolls.
Your thinking about D&D combat not 'lasting' long enough doesn't change averages or probability -- trust me on this (or, if you can't, ask your math teacher).
From your post, you clearly have a basic (correct) understanding of what an average is, but I think you may be misunderstanding how statistical thinking is applied in practice (e.g. to assess a game like D&D).
Maybe you've heard or read that statistics can be used in intellectually dishonest ways?
When people talk about using statistics to lie, they're not talking about misunderstanding the concept of what an average is -- they're talking about manipulating the underlying methodologies or assumptions used in things like polling.
If you're interested in understanding statistics, I'd recommend taking a college-level class in it when you get to university -- they should explain both the basics also also what people actually mean when they talk about using statistics to manipulate an argument in "intellectually dishonest" ways.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: StormBringer;588444Fireball damage.
Look, if you are rolling more than one die for any reason at all, it's a bell curve. Period. You may end up rolling second level hit points days, months or weeks later; it's still a bell curve because you are adding them. And if you are adding them, you can figure the average. The only way they could be discrete is if you rolled a d6 at first level, then replaced that with another d6 roll at 2nd level and used that instead. Or if you use a d66 roll or something. d% is actually linear, but 2d10 is not.
A bell curve requires multiple data points. If my 10th level wizard casts a 10d6 fireball, it does not create a bell curve. It creates a discrete number for that one casting.
Quote from: StormBringer;588444So, if you want to talk about Thieves, you can use the cumbersome phrase "Thieves can have either one hit point or six hit points at first level, which compares favourably with the Cleric, who can have either one hit point or eight hit points at first level." Except, everyone already knows that because of the "dX" notation. Rather than sit around doe-eyed at the innumerable possibilities, we just shorthand it and say "Thieves average 3.5 hit points per level, while Clerics average 4.5 hit points per level." Which is far more useful for talking about the two classes than trying to puzzle out all the possible combinations of hit points as though math doesn't have a way to save us the time.
For any individual Thief that is actually being played? Yeah, you obviously don't use averages unless you are curious if you are ahead of or behind the curve. You roll each level, add Con bonus and get back to playing. No one has suggested using averages in normal play as a routine matter. But when you are talking about game design or aspects of play, using the averages keeps from having to enumerate every possibility for sword damage.
OK, I get where you are coming from here. The average is important from an overall game design perspective. Equally important is to look at 1, 2, 3 standard deviations from that average.
Quote from: Old One Eye;588447A bell curve requires multiple data points. If my 10th level wizard casts a 10d6 fireball, it does not create a bell curve. It creates a discrete number for that one casting.
Actually, this isn't true. If you have a range of numbers (in this case using 10d6) you do have a bell curve of probability. It's how standard deviations are calculated. You don't need more than one cast to get that distribution curve. In fact, you don't need any castings at all.
Go to anydice.com (http://www.anydice.com/) and put in output 10d6 and hit graph. There's your bell curve.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588393Now, there is a place for weighted averages, but if you're rolling straight dice for hit points, you have to recognize that 2d6 is 2 as often as it's 12. Over many levels, it will probably average 3.5, but the differences from the average in the short term can be very important - and they may be the difference between having a chance and being 'guaranteed a short life'.
Just a quibble, but hp probabilities are on a bell curve. 2 and 12 are equally likely (1 in 36 odds I think) but 6 or 7 are more likely (1 in 6 I think). And the curve gets steeper the higher in level you are.
Sorry if I got anything wrong, but I just woke up. Gotta be awake for an all-nighter when some oil-based ink dries.
QuoteOf course, we'd expect the DM to 'have pity' and allow you to either re-roll or take the average right?
Honestly, the point of highest randomness (1st level) often gets a special rule for exactly this reason. Special rules include a flat bonus from con (for games where you don't apply that over and over), max on the die, or some other flat hp total or bonus.
In games where randomess is kept high, I would assume they keep it in place because they want it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588449Actually, this isn't true. If you have a range of numbers (in this case using 10d6) you do have a bell curve of probability. It's how standard deviations are calculated. You don't need more than one cast to get that distribution curve. In fact, you don't need any castings at all.
Go to anydice.com (http://www.anydice.com/) and put in output 10d6 and hit graph. There's your bell curve.
There absolutely is a bell curve of probability. The actual result, however, is not a bell curve.
Quote from: Old One Eye;588451There absolutely is a bell curve of probability. The actual result, however, is not a bell curve.
OK. Maybe I misread you (or him and what he was getting after). I suspect he was going after a bell curve of probability but worded it badly.
Quote from: deadDMwalkingThat said, in 1d6+1d6 it is just as possible to get any single number each time you roll. If you roll a 1 on the 1st roll, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling anything on the second. If you happen to roll a 6 (16.67% chance) you'll average 3.5. If you roll anything else, you won't. That's hardly surprising, is it?
Quote from: StormBringer;588434I am assuming you haven't quite realized how probabilities work, or you wouldn't have even considered typing that first sentence. 2d6 isn't two linear rolls, no matter how you try to completely fuck up the explanation.
Lordy... I knew you didn't understand probabilities, but I didn't understand how badly you failed to understand. And I could help, but you won't believe me,
especially if I'm right.
But here we go, anyways.
Example 1We roll 1d6 + 1d6. The first roll is a 1. What is the probability that we roll any specific number between 2 and 7?
The answer is 16.67%. We have an equal chance of rolling any number on the d6. Since we already know what the first roll was, we only need to worry about the probability of the second roll. Follow?
Example 2We have not yet rolled any dice. We will be rolling 2d6. What are the odds of rolling a 6 on the first roll? What are the odds of rolling a 6 on the second roll?
The answer is, 16.67% for each one. If you happen to roll a 6, you're no less likely to roll a 6 again. But while the odds of rolling each one remain the same, the odds of rolling them both in a row is 1/6 x 1/6. That is, 1 in 36.
Once you've rolled the first die, however, it doesn't matter what the specific probability was, it only matters what your result was. So, if you roll a 6 on the first roll, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling 12. You also have a 1/6 chance of rolling 7.
Example 3Now, even though each specific result is equally possible on each roll of the dice, we know that we get a 1 1/36 times, we get a 12 1/36 times. If the other results were equally possible, we'd only have 6/36 results. Clearly the 'middle results' are more probable. Why is that?
Simply put, more combinations add up to those middle numbers. To get 3 you need a 1 on the first die and a 2 on the second
or a 2 on the first die and a 1 on the second. That's 2 possible ways to get that result, making it twice as likely as a 1 or a 12. To get a 7 you can get 1 + 6, 2 + 5, 3 + 4, 4 + 3, 5 + 2, or 6 + 1. That is 6 possible ways to get a 7, or 6/36 chance.
But once you've established your first roll, you can't pretend the result doesn't exist. If your first roll is a 1, your odds of getting a 12 total are 0/36 - not 1/36.
Don't be stupid.
Here's a basic introduction:
http://bayonetarticles.tripod.com/id5.html
Note, it does explain that you're likely to see a bell curve with more dice (as I explained above) but it also makes clear that:
QuoteThrew a one? The probability of throwing 'one' again on the next throw is still one in six. Note that a d6 does not have memory, so after rolling a gazillion ones in a row, the probability of rolling one again is still one in six.
Quote from: StormBringer;588434Jesus, you have no clue how math works, do you?
And now that you've been demonstrated to be completely talking out of your ass, feel free to apologize. Or go ask your mommy to explain why I'm right and then you can apologize. Either way.
Quote from: beejazz;588450Just a quibble, but hp probabilities are on a bell curve. 2 and 12 are equally likely (1 in 36 odds I think) but 6 or 7 are more likely (1 in 6 I think). And the curve gets steeper the higher in level you are.
Assuming your character is leveled up over the course of the campaign, statistics start playing funny things. A character that rolls particularly low on initial hit points will tend to stay below the average for hit points throughout her career. A character that rolls particularly high on initial hit points will tend to stay above the average throughout her career.
Quote from: Old One Eye;588447OK, I get where you are coming from here. The average is important from an overall game design perspective. Equally important is to look at 1, 2, 3 standard deviations from that average.
Certainly. I would say those come in a bit later, after the rough numbers are in place. For the most part, this would be more important for a skill based system, or the skill portion of a class/level system. Class/level systems usually have a bit more leeway in the numbers, although they don't have to.
Quote from: Old One Eye;588455Assuming your character is leveled up over the course of the campaign, statistics start playing funny things. A character that rolls particularly low on initial hit points will tend to stay below the average for hit points throughout her career. A character that rolls particularly high on initial hit points will tend to stay above the average throughout her career.
Both are true, as DeadDM broke down in response to Stormy.
Let's say that one die is a 1 and the rest are average. The % difference between the guy who rolled low and the guy who rolled high shrinks over time. If damage also scales the difference becomes negligible.
Kind of like how the fixed -10 hp death makes it more likely for characters to go straight from alive to dead (with no KO in between) the higher in level they get. A difference of ten damage becomes less relevant over time.
Plus who rolls a 1 at 1 and lives to roll a second HD? This hypothetical player does not need any special breaks, I imagine. :p
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588454And now that you've been demonstrated to be completely talking out of your ass, feel free to apologize. Or go ask your mommy to explain why I'm right and then you can apologize. Either way.
Oh my deity. You
actually think you know what you are talking about.
QuoteExample 1
We roll 1d6 + 1d6. The first roll is a 1. What is the probability that we roll any specific number between 2 and 7?
It doesn't matter. That isn't what a 2d6 is. You don't need to know what the first roll is. That is why we have averages and probabilities. You can't
interpret maths;
it's not an opinion.
As I mentioned above, if we are talking about RavenBlack GrimDarkShadoBlack the 2nd level Thief, we can look at the hit points at first level, say 3, and compute there is a 16% chance of getting seven hit points. Or a 50% chance of having at least 6 hit points. Or whatever. But it's still
irrelevant except as a curiosity. It tells you nothing about RavenBlack or Thieves in general. It only gives you the odds of getting a specific result at 2nd level. Which helps you plan for absolutely nothing.
Regardless, a 2nd level Thief has 2d6 hit points, which is a bell curve. Any given Thief will be a point on that bell curve,
and most likely, that point will be "7". You know, like the average hit points per level (3.5) multiplied by the level (2)?
So, when people say things like "weighted averages are intellectually dishonest" or treat a bell curve like two linear outcomes, then demand an apology,
you don't look smart. You look like a pretentious twat who is in waaaaaay over his head and is scrambling to save face.
Quote from: Old One Eye;588455Assuming your character is leveled up over the course of the campaign, statistics start playing funny things. A character that rolls particularly low on initial hit points will tend to stay below the average for hit points throughout her career. A character that rolls particularly high on initial hit points will tend to stay above the average throughout her career.
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you roll a 1 for 1st level, the best you can do at 2nd level is exactly average, 7. If you roll another 6, you will have 13, while the average for 3rd level is 10.5 Continuing to roll 6s will keep you well above the average. Rolling 4s will actually get you just about to average at 5th level, then exactly average at 6th level and above average after. Granted, this puts you a whopping 2 hit points above average at 10th level, but hey, you take what you can get, right? :)
Wait a minute. I've only been partially following this, but is someone seriously saying that when doing regression or predicting mathematical outcomes of a possible result from multiple dice, they calculate those numbers by doing something like, "3d6 means you should roll 1d6 and get that result. Then roll another and add that. Then roll another and add that."
That's not how statistics works in practical application, and I've never heard anyone figuring averages that way.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588393I meant to respond to this in my last post, but I forgot. I saw your reference in another thread (locked now) so I figured I'd respond.
Assuming, for a moment, that a rogue has a HD of d6, the average roll would be 3.5. So a 2 HD thief would have 7 hit points on average. You're right about that, and you're right when you say that if you roll d6s thousands of times and average them together, you'll get 3.5 as the average roll.
That said, in 1d6+1d6 it is just as possible to get any single number each time you roll. If you roll a 1 on the 1st roll, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling anything on the second. If you happen to roll a 6 (16.67% chance) you'll average 3.5. If you roll anything else, you won't. That's hardly surprising, is it?
So a weighted average can be 'dishonest' if you aren't rolling thousands of times. If you happen to have a 2 hit point Thief at 1st level (possible with no bonus hit points for Con), you're very likely to die.
And while a longsword against a medium opponent might deal 4.5 on average in a given combat, it may matter whether it rolls high or rolls low.
That's why we don't substitute 'average rolls' for 'actual rolls'. The differences from average, while over the course of the campaign appearing to approach the average, actually make the game function. A nat 20 or a nat 1, while averaging 10.5, each affect the game very differently.
If you ignore that fact, you're being intellectually dishonest.
Now, there is a place for weighted averages, but if you're rolling straight dice for hit points, you have to recognize that 2d6 is 2 as often as it's 12. Over many levels, it will probably average 3.5, but the differences from the average in the short term can be very important - and they may be the difference between having a chance and being 'guaranteed a short life'.
Of course, we'd expect the DM to 'have pity' and allow you to either re-roll or take the average right?
If one's talking about "an average" then they're -- by definition -- not ignoring the fact that any given roll may vary from the average.
That's part of the definition of an average.
I'm not exactly clear what point you're making, but calling someone or some argument intellectually dishonest because it doesn't explicitly define the term average can't be right: it just means that the person talking about the average trusts the reader to understand what an average is.
From a AD&D perspective, low level characters who have one or two hit points may well be very likely to die early in the game. In my experience, that's part of the thrill / challenge of playing a first level character.
From a statistical standpoint, if you keep dying and rolling up new characters, you're likely to get a character with at least "average" hit-points (and therefore a decent chance at surviving) soon enough.
And, statistically speaking, it won't take "thousands" of times -- on a bell curve the odds of getting "average or better" are about 50/50.
Where's the "dishonesty?"
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588468Wait a minute. I've only been partially following this, but is someone seriously saying that when doing regression or predicting mathematical outcomes of a possible result from multiple dice, they calculate those numbers by doing something like, "3d6 means you should roll 1d6 and get that result. Then roll another and add that. Then roll another and add that."
That's not how statistics works in practical application, and I've never heard anyone figuring averages that way.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588454Example 1
We roll 1d6 + 1d6. The first roll is a 1. What is the probability that we roll any specific number between 2 and 7?
Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
Wow so someone is actually willing to admit that the old rolling system created characters that are virtually unplayable and you got one that was by repeatedly dying.
Ok then LM recap time.
-As much as this forum is on about "Actual Play" it only translates to games that support the grognard's points.
-Given that the completely dismiss theorycraft and now refuse to allow tests to be run. It is basically impossible for either side to conclusively prove anything
-"Winning" in D&D can be defined as accomplishing your characters goal's and regardless there is a clear failure state (death) to be avoided.
-In the view of both GC and myself everyone should be working toward helping the party "win" and failure to do so adequately do that should be discouraged.
-As written D&D kills players by the truckload barring DM pity (all editions) a or high level of optimization (3e or later)
-Once again the grognards show a large degree of cognitive dissonance as far as I can tell they want the party to succeed but object to the party being given abilities that allow them to succeed.
-Older editions have a large amount of fuck you player written in the rules and horrible things happening to characters for arbitrary reasons was highly encouraged. White Plume Mountain provides many good examples of that.
-On magical tea party: people can and do have fun with MTP and as hard line as I am it's not impossible to convince me a little MTP in a game can be a good thing. However MTP is an nonstarter as a central game design concept. People like playing cops and robbers but you shouldn't be asking people to pay money for that (fun fact the original VtM made the the mechanics deliberately bad to encourage MTP)
-Responses to my posts have become even more vitriolic too the point I'm stating to become a little concerned. To the people who have started going all internet cold reader I'm going to ask that you not continue. It really doesn't help your case when you indulge in that kind of nonsense.
-Sadly Benoist is now my favorite mod if only by process of elimination. He's an incoherent jerk and I disagree with him about stuff but he still manages to be vaguely respectable on a personal level. (He's still frozen fast though).
At some later point I'm going to start a thread that hopefully will not become another shitstorm. On the other hand I'm not going to get my hopes up.
LM out
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588472Wow so someone is actually willing to admit that the old rolling system created characters that are virtually unplayable and you got one that was by repeatedly dying.
-"Winning" in D&D can be defined as accomplishing your characters goal's and regardless there is a clear failure state (death) to be avoided.
LM out
I think you're out, but just in case, I wanted to offer a clarification and a recommended perspective --
Low level, low-hit point characters aren't "virtually unplayable." They're challenging to play, and I can see how it might not be to everyone's taste, but low-level D&D can be a lot of fun.
They also don't necessarily die. Careful play can keep them alive long enough to level up to become robust characters -- that can be an extremely rewarding play style.
And really, any 1st level AD&D character is pretty fragile -- so it was less a matter of "rolling system created fragile characters" than "the game rules were set up so that low level characters were very fragile no matter what."
Most games (and any game with "rule 0" like D&D 3x) have the same situation: the DM can throw whatever he wants, so no matter how optimized your character is, he's only as fragile as the next room with 100 invulnerable, regenerating Tarrasque's, right?
In terms of "winning" D&D, I'd suggest you re-consider the concept you're trying to communicate -- since RPGs don't really have "victory" conditions talking about winning and losing is really applying your personal, idiosyncratic perspective to the games.
Just to examine this, what would you say the GM's "win" condition? By your definition, it would be undefined -- I think this is a pretty good reason not to try to stretch the term.
You could say, "If my character dies, I don't have any fun," or "If my character dies I feel like a loser," -- both of those acknowledge that you're talking about your personal feelings -- but for people who don't have the same emotional reaction to the game, your definition of "winning" wouldn't apply.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588472At some later point I'm going to start a thread that hopefully will not become another shitstorm. On the other hand I'm not going to get my hopes up.
Try by creating a thread about a game you actually know something about without it being a ridiculously obvious cover for trolling against games you know nothing about filled with attacks against the people who play the games you know nothing about.
It's been known to work now and again.
Quote from: StormBringer;588471Boggles the mind, doesn't it?
Yeah, it does. Technically he's right, but no one ever does it like that. You don't figure out averages of a pool of potential results like 3d6 by figuring the value of the first dice, and then probability of the next two, and so on. You look at the probability of all dice combinations as if they were rolled at the same time.
With his logic, it's not "probability of a numerical result of 2d6" but "probability of 1d6, tally the result, and added to the probability of another d6."
Using averages of multiple d6 rolls comes in quite handy when you're deciding whether to Fireball your own swarmed party to save them.
Quote from: StormBringer;588464It doesn't matter. That isn't what a 2d6 is. You don't need to know what the first roll is. That is why we have averages and probabilities. You can't interpret maths; it's not an opinion.
1d6 + 1d6 (as in, HD) is exactly that - two rolls rolled separately, wherein the first is determined before the second.
Quote from: StormBringer;588464As I mentioned above, if we are talking about RavenBlack GrimDarkShadoBlack the 2nd level Thief, we can look at the hit points at first level, say 3, and compute there is a 16% chance of getting seven hit points. Or a 50% chance of having at least 6 hit points. Or whatever. But it's still irrelevant except as a curiosity. It tells you nothing about RavenBlack or Thieves in general. It only gives you the odds of getting a specific result at 2nd level. Which helps you plan for absolutely nothing.
Regardless, a 2nd level Thief has 2d6 hit points, which is a bell curve. Any given Thief will be a point on that bell curve, and most likely, that point will be "7". You know, like the average hit points per level (3.5) multiplied by the level (2)?
Yes. On average, thieves have 7 hit points at 2nd level if you roll 2d6 and don't add anything to that. But 1/36 have 12 hit points, 1/36 have 2 hit points, 2 out of 36 have 11 hit points, 2 out of 36 have 2 hit points, and so on. The fact that 6 out of 36 have 7 hit points means that it is statistically
the most likely result, but it does not mean that every thief has 7 hit points, or even that the majority do.
So when you say things like 'a longsword does 4.5 damage each round, or 1.35 damage each round' while that may be true, in a useful way for determining 'average' it is extremely unlikely that any single combat will actually
be average. Looking at the average expected results has value, which I have fully argued for in the past when people have asked for 'examples from play'. But I'm not so pig-headed as to fail to see that a particular character's experience may differ from average, significantly.
Again, 1 out of every 36 Thief characters will roll 2 hit points for 2nd level. The likelihood of surviving first level in that case is extremely small, as is the likelihood of surviving 2nd. Now, some might argue that 'Ravenblack never should have gone adventuring', but that's part of the possible 'suicide mill' until you get a character worth playing.
The averages bear consideration. Pretending that all situations will be 'average' is intellectually dishonest, as has been pointed out before. Just because there is an average doesn't mean you can ignore the outliers. So, for example, pretending that every Thief has 7 hit points at 2nd level (while true
on average is not true for 30 of 36 Thief characters.
So to make this clear:
1/36 will have 2 hit points
2/36 will have 3 hit points
3/36 will have 4 hit points
4/36 will have 5 hit points
5/36 will have 6 hit points
6/36 will have 7 hit points
5/36 will have 8 hit points
4/36 will have 9 hit points
3/36 will have 10 hit points
2/36 will have 11 hit points
1/36 will have 12 hit points
Now, again, since 7 hit points is the most common result, using that as our 'default' over thousands of tests (or characters) is fair. For an average character, the average result can thus be determined.
But recognize now that 5/6 of the characters generated
will not be average. Running tests with average characters gives you a good baseline, but if the game
doesn't work with characters above or below average, that
needs to be considered because that actually happens
more often than not.
Now, if you still don't understand why you're wrong, I despair of ever convincing you, but that's okay. You're a dumbass anyway. Everyone else should be able to get it.
Did these guys ever had courses of basic probabilities in school? Because honestly, that's grade 9-10 mathematics level, to me. I'm kind of blown away by the level of sheer stubborness it takes to even question stuff like this.
Quote from: StormBringer;588467I'm not sure what you mean here. If you roll a 1 for 1st level, the best you can do at 2nd level is exactly average, 7. If you roll another 6, you will have 13, while the average for 3rd level is 10.5 Continuing to roll 6s will keep you well above the average. Rolling 4s will actually get you just about to average at 5th level, then exactly average at 6th level and above average after. Granted, this puts you a whopping 2 hit points above average at 10th level, but hey, you take what you can get, right? :)
In statistics, when you are figuring the average rolls for a series, it is only potential future rolls that will tend toward the mean. The hit dice that you have already rolled cannot tend toward the mean, they have already been rolled and accounted for. Since you start out behind the gate, you need higher than average future rolls in order to rise to average, but your future rolls are going to tend to be average, hence the character will tend to stay behind the gate.
For one individual character, this is not necessarily an issue. But the typical adventuring party has 4-5 characters. As such, there is a lot of potential for one character to be woefully behind the curve while another is dramatically ahead of the curve. The differentiation between characters on the very important hit points can become substantial.
Case in point, my current playtest group hit 5th level last night in D&D 5e. There is a 30 hit point difference between my 5th level fighter who has rolled poorly and the other 5th level fighter who has rolled well.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588393If you ignore that fact, you're being intellectually dishonest.
The only way to ignore that fact, though, is to either drop the label 'average' or not know what an average is.
I don't think that can be credibly demonstrated here.
In fact, the only completely dishonest arguments I've seen thus far are from Mr GC.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588476Yeah, it does. Technically he's right, but no one ever does it like that. You don't figure out averages of a pool of potential results like 3d6 by figuring the value of the first dice, and then probability of the next two, and so on. You look at the probability of all dice combinations as if they were rolled at the same time.
Exactly. I have no idea what 1d6+1d6 is supposed to represent differently than 2d6, or why one would need to know the odds of getting a specific second number after a specific first number. In the current context, of course.
QuoteWith his logic, it's not "probability of a numerical result of 2d6" but "probability of 1d6, tally the result, and added to the probability of another d6."
You can figure out something specific, like the odds of rolling up a Paladin or something. I just don't see the general use case for that.
12 or better Strength is 37.5%, 9 or better Intelligence is 74.07%, 13 or better Wisdom is 25.93%, 9 or better Constitution is 74.07%, and the kicker, 17 or better Charisma is 1.85% Unless I missed a number, that should be just shy of .1% odds of rolling a Paladin...? I guess if you also figured the population of the whole campaign world, you could confidently state that .1% of them are Paladins. Again, I am not sure of a general use case for those numbers.
Quote from: Planet Algol;588479Using averages of multiple d6 rolls comes in quite handy when you're deciding whether to Fireball your own swarmed party to save them.
Or you can just skip that step. ;)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;5884801d6 + 1d6 (as in, HD) is exactly that - two rolls rolled separately, wherein the first is determined before the second.
Ok, then you are a complete moron, because that isn't 2d6. Thats a d66.
QuoteYes. On average, thieves have 7 hit points at 2nd level if you roll 2d6 and don't add anything to that. But 1/36 have 12 hit points, 1/36 have 2 hit points, 2 out of 36 have 11 hit points, 2 out of 36 have 2 hit points, and so on. The fact that 6 out of 36 have 7 hit points means that it is statistically the most likely result, but it does not mean that every thief has 7 hit points, or even that the majority do.
No shit, genius. That is what a fucking
average is. It doesn't say that every datapoint equals some value.
You cannot be this stupid.
QuoteSo when you say things like 'a longsword does 4.5 damage each round, or 1.35 damage each round' while that may be true, in a useful way for determining 'average' it is extremely unlikely that any single combat will actually be average.
Do you really fucking think so?
The least you could do while completely fucking up math is pay attention to the argument you are addressing. A longsword does an average of 4.5 points of damage. If a particular character hits 30% of the time, then that character can be said to have an output of 1.35 points per round Hence, you could expect an opponent with 13 hit points to be out in about ten rounds.
Here's how that is useful: If you have a beneficial potion that lasts eight rounds, drink it at the beginning of combat. If it only lasts two rounds, you are probably better off using it towards the end.
QuoteLooking at the average expected results has value, which I have fully argued for in the past when people have asked for 'examples from play'. But I'm not so pig-headed as to fail to see that a particular character's experience may differ from average, significantly.
Ok, but the averages aren't
examples from actual fucking play. They are calculated values that are useful for estimating all kinds of instances that come up during play, as well as game design principles.
QuoteAgain, 1 out of every 36 Thief characters will roll 2 hit points for 2nd level. The likelihood of surviving first level in that case is extremely small, as is the likelihood of surviving 2nd. Now, some might argue that 'Ravenblack never should have gone adventuring', but that's part of the possible 'suicide mill' until you get a character worth playing.
But 35 out of 36 characters will roll more than two hit points at second level. What the fuck are you babbling about?
QuoteThe averages bear consideration. Pretending that all situations will be 'average' is intellectually dishonest, as has been pointed out before. Just because there is an average doesn't mean you can ignore the outliers. So, for example, pretending that every Thief has 7 hit points at 2nd level (while true on average is not true for 30 of 36 Thief characters.
Holy fucking shit.
QuoteSo to make this clear:
1/36 will have 2 hit points
2/36 will have 3 hit points
3/36 will have 4 hit points
4/36 will have 5 hit points
5/36 will have 6 hit points
6/36 will have 7 hit points
5/36 will have 8 hit points
4/36 will have 9 hit points
3/36 will have 10 hit points
2/36 will have 11 hit points
1/36 will have 12 hit points
Now, again, since 7 hit points is the most common result, using that as our 'default' over thousands of tests (or characters) is fair. For an average character, the average result can thus be determined.
By Jove, I think he's got it!
QuoteBut recognize now that 5/6 of the characters generated will not be average. Running tests with average characters gives you a good baseline, but if the game doesn't work with characters above or below average, that needs to be considered because that actually happens more often than not.
I guess I spoke too soon.
QuoteNow, if you still don't understand why you're wrong, I despair of ever convincing you, but that's okay. You're a dumbass anyway. Everyone else should be able to get it.
Everyone else does get it. They are also saying you are a complete maths failure. Shine on, you crazy zebra.
Quote from: Old One Eye;588482In statistics, when you are figuring the average rolls for a series, it is only potential future rolls that will tend toward the mean. The hit dice that you have already rolled cannot tend toward the mean, they have already been rolled and accounted for. Since you start out behind the gate, you need higher than average future rolls in order to rise to average, but your future rolls are going to tend to be average, hence the character will tend to stay behind the gate.
Ohhhhh! Ok, I got ya. Like I inadvertently explained to myself, then promptly forgot what I was talking about. :)
QuoteFor one individual character, this is not necessarily an issue. But the typical adventuring party has 4-5 characters. As such, there is a lot of potential for one character to be woefully behind the curve while another is dramatically ahead of the curve. The differentiation between characters on the very important hit points can become substantial.
No argument there.
QuoteCase in point, my current playtest group hit 5th level last night in D&D 5e. There is a 30 hit point difference between my 5th level fighter who has rolled poorly and the other 5th level fighter who has rolled well.
Yeah, that can be a mess. Using an averaging die (or simulating with a regular die) can alleviate that, if everyone agrees it is a problem. 30 points is quite a gap to overcome for the weaker guy, unless he doesn't mind firing arrows from rearguard.
Quote from: StormBringer;588490Ok, but the averages aren't examples from actual fucking play. They are calculated values that are useful for estimating all kinds of instances that come up during play, as well as game design principles.
Methinks the conflation of all the different instances of utilizing means and standard deviations into one argument is what has turned this into a big mess of a discussion.
A game designer deciding whether to utilize rolling d6 hit points per level for rogues is undergoing an entirely different thought process than a wizard's player deciding whether to cast a fireball spell.
Personally, I haven't quite figured out anything mathematically wrong with anything that anyone has said. Just looks like are coming from different expectations of what such maths are being used for.
Quote from: StormBringer;588489Or you can just skip that step. ;)
Pr-emptive diplomatic/tactical discussion and permission with/from other players...
Spoiler
...justification in the case of PCs with magic items I want.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588480So when you say things like 'a longsword does 4.5 damage each round, or 1.35 damage each round' while that may be true, in a useful way for determining 'average' it is extremely unlikely that any single combat will actually be average. .
Uh...that's what average is. Go ahead and run the numbers 100 times. 1000 times. I bet the average damage will be 4.5 or thereabouts.
Quote from: Planet Algol;588497Pr-emptive diplomatic/tactical discussion and permission with/from other players...
Spoiler
...justification in the case of PCs with magic items I want.
Perfect!
Quote from: Old One Eye;588494Methinks the conflation of all the different instances of utilizing means and standard deviations into one argument is what has turned this into a big mess of a discussion.
That's entirely possible. There are a great number of instances where those are used. But it's difficult to move forward with the conversation while explaining what an average is.
QuoteA game designer deciding whether to utilize rolling d6 hit points per level for rogues is undergoing an entirely different thought process than a wizard's player deciding whether to cast a fireball spell.
Absolutely. I think the point is that they all use the same math, though.
QuotePersonally, I haven't quite figured out anything mathematically wrong with anything that anyone has said. Just looks like are coming from different expectations of what such maths are being used for.
Up to a point. dDM seems to be using d66 in his examples for no coherent reason, and conflating that with 2d6.
...What? I take off for a day, and a thread about basket weaving becomes a sixteen page flamefest/rant/whine about how rolling D&D HPs using D6's is unfair for the players and D&D 3.x is suckage?
Define "basket weaver"
Quote from: GameDaddy;588511Define "basket weaver"
One who weaves baskets.
Quote from: GameDaddy;588511...What? I take off for a day, and a thread about basket weaving becomes a sixteen page flamefest/rant/whine about how rolling D&D HPs using D6's is unfair for the players and D&D 3.x is suckage?
Define "basket weaver"
I gather it refers to a player who doesn't optimize his character build as proficiently as Mistborn and Co. would like. I also gather that in his preferred style of game, a degree of optimization is expected and even required, and a more ordinary character might not fit in.
All this presumes the possibility of character optimization. In games where playing the hand you're dealt is part of the challenge (as in real life, for whatever it's worth) such a classification is meaningless.
Yes, the topic is as boring as it sounds.
Quote from: Dan Vincze;588522All this presumes the possibility of character optimization. In games where playing the hand you're dealt is part of the challenge (as in real life, for whatever it's worth) such a classification is meaningless.
It also implies a profound lack of understanding of the skills in question, even in games where optimisation is a factor, and while I won't say a lack of imagination as regards using those skills, yanno...
Maybe we need to get all postmodernist on this shit? Basket is like a campaign. In the end you look at the campaign you've finished and either it looks like a real basket you can carry shit in, or something like the webs of those spiders on crack.
Am I doing this right?
Quote from: vytzka;588531Maybe we need to get all postmodernist on this shit? Basket is like a campaign. In the end you look at the campaign you've finished and either it looks like a real basket you can carry shit in, or something like the webs of those spiders on crack.
Am I doing this right?
I don't fucking even know. I'm still reeling from the Gibberlings' recent color spray of stupidity. When I spoke of pietà pose and technicolor poo I didn't think it'd be a feat of base idiocy topped so fast.
I don't think DADAist could pull this off, let alone any of our post-modernist mockeries. There's a level of conviction necessary here that seems beyond the scope of conscious trolling. It's starting to evoke real pity from me.
:(
Quote from: The Traveller;588526It also implies a profound lack of understanding of the skills in question, even in games where optimisation is a factor, and while I won't say a lack of imagination as regards using those skills, yanno...
As far as I understand the Denner viewpoint, the only things that count are things you can press DM's nose at and they have to pay attention to your adolescent ass.
You always have your BAB for instance, if there's combat and you want to stab a motherfucker you make an attack roll, then damage roll, then someone suffers damage. There's no interpretation or very little of it.
(Let's pretend that stabbing things is at all important in higher level 3.5 combat for the sake of discussion)
When you have a skill like basket weaving, it relies on the DM being a decent human being in order to have it be useful. You can go all like my character wants to make a hut or whatever like in those pictures earlier in the thread and if your DM is a douche he will be all like orcs attack.
Remember: if it doesn't work with a douche DM it doesn't count. Because bad gaming is apparently better than no gaming?
(no, I don't get it either)
Quote from: vytzka;588531Maybe we need to get all postmodernist on this shit?
Nah. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the term being discussed is Tuesdays occupational therapy session for certain posters...It probably comes right after making mail-bags and just before finger-painting.
Quote from: -E.;588446I just wanted to drop in here and help you out:
Basic statistics (averages) are certainly applicable to D&D, just as they are to any game that uses uses dice or other randomizers. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about using the to understand the likely outcome of any die roll or set of die rolls.
So when someone with a 100% chance to hit, 10 damage per hit and 20 HP fights someone with a 50% chance to hit, 20 damage per hit and 10 HP and B goes first, A always wins?
QuoteYour thinking about D&D combat not 'lasting' long enough doesn't change averages or probability -- trust me on this (or, if you can't, ask your math teacher).
Because averages matter when only 1-3 iterations count. You can average those results, but you will likely get something dramatically different than the median result.
Here, I'll even help you with that.
3d20+0
1,9,1+0 = 11
3d20+0
11,14,16+0 = 41
3d20+0
8,8,7+0 = 23
Oh look, most of these sets average well above or well below 10.5. Now if you averaged all of them together you'd be a lot closer but that's called getting a large enough sample size to be representative.
QuoteFrom your post, you clearly have a basic (correct) understanding of what an average is, but I think you may be misunderstanding how statistical thinking is applied in practice (e.g. to assess a game like D&D).
Maybe you've heard or read that statistics can be used in intellectually dishonest ways?
Weighted averages have actually been used dishonestly by D&D players, by virtue of not taking the too small sample size into account.
Quote from: beejazz;588450Just a quibble, but hp probabilities are on a bell curve. 2 and 12 are equally likely (1 in 36 odds I think) but 6 or 7 are more likely (1 in 6 I think). And the curve gets steeper the higher in level you are.
Sorry if I got anything wrong, but I just woke up. Gotta be awake for an all-nighter when some oil-based ink dries.
2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12.
But since we're talking about level 1 it's just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
QuoteHonestly, the point of highest randomness (1st level) often gets a special rule for exactly this reason. Special rules include a flat bonus from con (for games where you don't apply that over and over), max on the die, or some other flat hp total or bonus.
In games where randomess is kept high, I would assume they keep it in place because they want it.
It usually does... but not in these games. Pre 3rd edition, 1st HD is random. 3.x, it gets maxed (you'll still often die in 1-2 hits though).
Quote from: -E.;588474I think you're out, but just in case, I wanted to offer a clarification and a recommended perspective --
Low level, low-hit point characters aren't "virtually unplayable." They're challenging to play, and I can see how it might not be to everyone's taste, but low-level D&D can be a lot of fun.
We're talking about a game where literally 90%ish of the areas you go in have at least one fuck you, people die now. You want to wander around with even lower HP than usual? Unless you do some shit where you respawn at the beginning of the dungeon or if someone touches your body for a round it is quite literally unplayable because everyone will die before getting anywhere.
QuoteThey also don't necessarily die. Careful play can keep them alive long enough to level up to become robust characters -- that can be an extremely rewarding play style.
So would that be paranoid pole dancing, complete with lots of reading the DM's notes behind his back?
QuoteMost games (and any game with "rule 0" like D&D 3x) have the same situation: the DM can throw whatever he wants, so no matter how optimized your character is, he's only as fragile as the next room with 100 invulnerable, regenerating Tarrasque's, right?
"I cast Fly and instantly win."
Try again.
Quote from: GameDaddy;588511...What? I take off for a day, and a thread about basket weaving becomes a sixteen page flamefest/rant/whine about how rolling D&D HPs using D6's is unfair for the players and D&D 3.x is suckage?
Define "basket weaver"
I defined that on the first page. People would rather go off on tangents to defend the right of basket weavers to ruin every game they touch.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588472Wow so someone is actually willing to admit that the old rolling system created characters that are virtually unplayable and you got one that was by repeatedly dying.
No one has admitted that, dumbass. Learn to read first or fall in a well and die. Your choice.
QuoteOk then LM recap time.
Le Sigh
Quote-As much as this forum is on about "Actual Play" it only translates to games that support the grognard's points.
In this forum people posts the Actual Play of the games they play, which happen to be the games they like,
just the fucking same as every other messageboard you fucktard. What are people supposed to play, games they don't like?
Quote-Given that the completely dismiss theorycraft and now refuse to allow tests to be run. It is basically impossible for either side to conclusively prove anything
Quote-"Winning" in D&D can be defined as accomplishing your characters goal's and regardless there is a clear failure state (death) to be avoided.
-In the view of both GC and myself everyone should be working toward helping the party "win" and failure to do so adequately do that should be discouraged.
Your views are not only not universally shared, but they actually clash with the most common definition of the goals of the game, specially D&D games. So I can wipe my ass with your point of view.
Quote-As written D&D kills players by the truckload barring DM pity (all editions) a or high level of optimization (3e or later)
If it's too hard for you, play something else.
Quote(fun fact the original VtM made the the mechanics deliberately bad to encourage MTP)
You think this is a fact? Says who, you idiot? You really think that Mark Rein·Hagen, Andrew Greenberg and the rest sat down and said "Gee, let's do a crappy system so people will be forced to use DM fiat?" Really?
Quote from: CRKrueger;588475Try by creating a thread about a game you actually know something about without it being a ridiculously obvious cover for trolling against games you know nothing about filled with attacks against the people who play the games you know nothing about.
It's been known to work now and again.
Bingo.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588552"I cast Fly and instantly win."
I don't know in which kind of games this may happen.
One of the great things abou the way HP work in D&D is they usually provide several different methods and optional rules. One way to get around low level PCs being fragile is max HP. Not everyone likes that though. Some people prefer the randomness, and others consider it being an important balancer in the game (particularly for wizards who have more trouble making it through the first few levels than other classes). I don't know, maybe rather than try to mathmatically prove one style of play is "incorrect" you could explain why you like your style and accept different people like different things. Of course that requires posters not just being trolling the forum for laughs, and actually have a modicum of interest in what makes other gamers tick.
I have played with "basket weavers" and "munchkins". I can enjoy both. I can see the draw to to both styles. I have played unforgiving RPGs where you roll up a new character every session (sometimes multiples every session-----sometimes you never have to at all because you play cautiously and that is half the point) at lower levels and played ones where the PCs are more buffered early on against death. They both have things that make them fun.
Roleplayers and optimizers on their own don't destroy games. Jerks destroy games. A roleplayer bent on talking to the shopkeep for an hour when all anyone else wants to do is explore the Kobold Cave of Doom, creates a problem. An optimizer who creates broken builds and insists on following every last dot of the rulebook while metegaming the heck out of it, when all others want is a more freeform and roleplay heavy session also creates problems. An optimizer in a group of optimizers does fine. A roleplayer in a group of roleplayers does fine. Optimizers who are not jerks can get along with Roleplayers just fine and vice versa. Its when you go into a group without any regard for the predominant style of play and expect them to bend to your style that problems arise.
Quote from: Imperator;588575You think this is a fact? Says who, you idiot? You really think that Mark Rein·Hagen, Andrew Greenberg and the rest sat down and said "Gee, let's do a crappy system so people will be forced to use DM fiat?" Really?
Old editions deliberately had rules of "you fail" for detecting traps so that people would be forced to pole dance to deal with them. It's very believable.
QuoteI don't know in which kind of games this may happen.
The kind that pretend a Tarrasque is an actual threat, when it has no ranged attacks, no flight, nothing that would let it kill any party over about level 6... 10 at the absolute most.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588576One of the great things abou the way HP work in D&D is they usually provide several different methods and optional rules. One way to get around low level PCs being fragile is max HP. Not everyone likes that though. Some people prefer the randomness, and others consider it being an important balancer in the game (particularly for wizards who have more trouble making it through the first few levels than other classes). I don't know, maybe rather than try to mathmatically prove one style of play is "incorrect" you could explain why you like your style and accept different people like different things. Of course that requires posters not just being trolling the forum for laughs, and actually have a modicum of interest in what makes other gamers tick.
Max HP = you still die constantly at low levels, just less than max makes it even more hilarious.
You can go max HP at ALL levels and low levels will still be pure randomness... though at least later on, having a high HD will actually mean something.
The rest of your post is full retard because:
A powergamer is not a cheater, get your terms right.
A powergamer is not any less capable of roleplaying (and is often more).
A weak character is not any better roleplayed (and is often much worse).
Your passive aggressive bullshit is fooling no one. And to think that I first gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588578Max HP = you still die constantly at low levels, just less than max makes it even more hilarious.
You can go max HP at ALL levels and low levels will still be pure randomness... though at least later on, having a high HD will actually mean something.
The rest of your post is full retard because:
A powergamer is not a cheater, get your terms right.
A powergamer is not any less capable of roleplaying (and is often more).
A weak character is not any better roleplayed (and is often much worse).
Your passive aggressive bullshit is fooling no one. And to think that I first gave you the benefit of the doubt.
I had a whole point by point response to this, then deleted when I realized at the end you are just trying to be disruptive. These points have zero to do with what I posted (which was about extreme asshole examples of roleplayers and optimizers). I basically said there is merit to both styles of play, including the one you advocate and you accuse me of engaging in "passive aggressive bullshit". Congratulations, you are an asshole. You have demonstrated there is no reason for me to engage you further or bother reading your posts (except when my mod duties require).
Ok then
Imperator should consider going back on his meds, seriously
Brendan has passed the point where I just have to assume he's concern trolling.
So yeah White Wolf games have terrible mechanics and "actual play" in those games is 90% MTP. I find it hard to believe people don't know this already.
Quote from: Imperator;588575If it's too hard for you, play something else.
Also that's my line when you try to MTP your way past an encounter (which is what the much vaunted player creativity this forum harps on) you are not being clever or a special creative snowflake. You are saying to the DM "Waaaaah D&D is too hard let's play pretend instead." DMs really should not enable the sort of behavior.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588552So when someone with a 100% chance to hit, 10 damage per hit and 20 HP fights someone with a 50% chance to hit, 20 damage per hit and 10 HP and B goes first, A always wins?
Because averages matter when only 1-3 iterations count. You can average those results, but you will likely get something dramatically different than the median result.
Here, I'll even help you with that.
3d20+0
1,9,1+0 = 11
3d20+0
11,14,16+0 = 41
3d20+0
8,8,7+0 = 23
Oh look, most of these sets average well above or well below 10.5. Now if you averaged all of them together you'd be a lot closer but that's called getting a large enough sample size to be representative.
Weighted averages have actually been used dishonestly by D&D players, by virtue of not taking the too small sample size into account.
2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12.
But since we're talking about level 1 it's just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
It usually does... but not in these games. Pre 3rd edition, 1st HD is random. 3.x, it gets maxed (you'll still often die in 1-2 hits though).
We're talking about a game where literally 90%ish of the areas you go in have at least one fuck you, people die now. You want to wander around with even lower HP than usual? Unless you do some shit where you respawn at the beginning of the dungeon or if someone touches your body for a round it is quite literally unplayable because everyone will die before getting anywhere.
So would that be paranoid pole dancing, complete with lots of reading the DM's notes behind his back?
"I cast Fly and instantly win."
Try again.
Intellectual Dishonesty around AveragesI'm still not seeing anything dishonest. I've read your explanation of averages, and it looks to me like you're -- very forcefully, and over and over again -- making the point that individual rolls won't necessarily be the "average."
I'm not sure why you keep pointing out the obvious: unless I'm missing something, isn't the idea that any individual roll won't necessarily be "the average" pretty much the definition of "average?"
Why do you keep re-stating that, and why do you think there's something dishonest about it?
Let me ask you, if I say that the "average" of a 1d6 is "3.5" would you call me intellectually dishonest because you can't actually roll a 3.5 on a d6?
I'd hope not -- but you say that D&D players are "dishonest" by not taking into account a small sample size -- you're misunderstanding something you've heard about using statistics to lie: sample size is important in using statistical methods to understand the characteristics of a group -- for example, polling.
You don't need any "sample size" to calculate an average on a dice roll, and there's nothing dishonest about using basic math to do so.
I'd ask you to try to explain what you actually feel is dishonest -- you don't need to re-iterate what an average is or that specific rolls won't necessarily be "average" -- I get that.
So, given that, where's the dishonesty?
Low Level D&D is unplayableThis is a pretty bold assertion -- are you saying that no one's ever played D&D because it's too deadly?
I get that you don't like it -- that's fine. There's a lot of games I don't like -- but to say it's too deadly is factually wrong.
If I played low level D&D and didn't find it "too deadly" wouldn't that invalidate your hypothesis?
I can fly and instantly win?How does your first level D&D character have a fly spell? Also, aren't we in a room? If the ceiling's low then how does flying help you win?
I'm kind of confused by what you're saying here, but my point is that in any version of D&D, the DM has complete authority to put anything in the game he wants...
So isn't it trivially easy to create an un-winnable challenge?
How could it not be? Unless you're playing one of those fruity games where the DM doesn't have traditional authority -- is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
Cheers,
-E.
What the fuck is concern trolling supposed to mean in this context. This parroting random words instead of actual arguments thing is getting even more tedious than before.
Quote from: -E.;588585Intellectual Dishonesty around Averages
I'm still not seeing anything dishonest. I've read your explanation of averages, and it looks to me like you're -- very forcefully, and over and over again -- making the point that individual rolls won't necessarily be the "average."
I'm not sure why you keep pointing out the obvious: unless I'm missing something, isn't the idea that any individual roll won't necessarily be "the average" pretty much the definition of "average?"
They still don't get it.
QuoteLet me ask you, if I say that the "average" of a 1d6 is "3.5" would you call me intellectually dishonest because you can't actually roll a 3.5 on a d6?
I would if you said you are hit for 1d6 damage and you and your 5 HP means you always survive.
QuoteI'd ask you to try to explain what you actually feel is dishonest -- you don't need to re-iterate what an average is or that specific rolls won't necessarily be "average" -- I get that.
You'll just ignore it again, so why bother?
QuoteLow Level D&D is unplayable
This is a pretty bold assertion -- are you saying that no one's ever played D&D because it's too deadly?
I'm saying people either:
1: Skipped low levels.
2: Outright cheated to remove the constant death from the game.
3: Made a bunch of houserules so 1st level characters have around 60 HP or something stupid.
QuoteI get that you don't like it -- that's fine. There's a lot of games I don't like -- but to say it's too deadly is factually wrong.
Oh? So all those things that kill everyone of all classes in 1-2 hits... they don't actually exist?
Because if you're saying "the rules of the game we are currently playing do not actually exist within that game" then yeah, I suppose you can not die all the time. But if you are playing D&D, and not pretend, you will have a nice death.
QuoteI can fly and instantly win?
How does your first level D&D character have a fly spell? Also, aren't we in a room? If the ceiling's low then how does flying help you win?
Why would a first level character be fighting even one Tarrasque? Why would anyone care about first level, given the whole random death thing?
The point of course is when you say OMG high level encounter, and it turns out it actually isn't like that at all it just makes you seem foolish.
Quote from: vytzka;588586What the fuck is concern trolling supposed to mean in this context. This parroting random words instead of actual arguments thing is getting even more tedious than before.
Google mother fucker, can you has it?
Quote from: vytzka;588586What the fuck is concern trolling supposed to mean in this context. This parroting random words instead of actual arguments thing is getting even more tedious than before.
I'm not sure. It looks to me like these guys are either not playing traditional game (which is odd since they're talking like they play D&D) or their DM has convinced them that they're winning because their characters are somehow "optimized" (rather than that they're winning because the DM chooses not to use his authority to beat them).
I'm wondering if it's possible that they're very disturbed by the idea that their in-game success is the result of DM kindness (rather than skill at building characters or something), and that's resulting in the weird math stuff and the ad hominem remarks.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588588They still don't get it.
I would if you said you are hit for 1d6 damage and you and your 5 HP means you always survive.
You'll just ignore it again, so why bother?
I'm saying people either:
1: Skipped low levels.
2: Outright cheated to remove the constant death from the game.
3: Made a bunch of houserules so 1st level characters have around 60 HP or something stupid.
Oh? So all those things that kill everyone of all classes in 1-2 hits... they don't actually exist?
Because if you're saying "the rules of the game we are currently playing do not actually exist within that game" then yeah, I suppose you can not die all the time. But if you are playing D&D, and not pretend, you will have a nice death.
Why would a first level character be fighting even one Tarrasque? Why would anyone care about first level, given the whole random death thing?
The point of course is when you say OMG high level encounter, and it turns out it actually isn't like that at all it just makes you seem foolish.
Intellectual dishonesty would be if someone with 5 HP would always survive 1d6 damageThat would be wrong, but I don't see anyone saying that. Can you articulate the intellectual dishonesty you're talking about?
People either skipped lower levels or had house rules to make the game more survivableWhat if they didn't? What if they just played so first level characters died a lot (and the player would bring in another one)?
I get that's not your preference, but are you saying that it's impossible? That it never happened?
OMG High Level Encounter?I think you missed my point -- I didn't say "OMG High Level Encounter" -- I said that a traditional DM can put in anything he wants so it doesn't matter how optimized your character is.
I mean, come-on -- your solution to being in a room with 100 giant French monsters was to *fly,* right? The ceiling would stop that, and you'd die.
Or maybe these are flying giant monsters. The point is, with a traditional DM it doesn't matter how optimized you are: the DM can put in anything he wants.
Right?
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588552So when someone with a 100% chance to hit, 10 damage per hit and 20 HP fights someone with a 50% chance to hit, 20 damage per hit and 10 HP and B goes first, A always wins?
.
Sigh.....
Ok, let's just put aside for the moment that you're describing a scenario that just doesn't happen, so making up imaginary scenarios to try to disprove the value of weighted averages is...well...just stupid.
I know this isn't a shocker to anyone, but what you're doing is trying to disprove the worth of weighted averages by introducing a scenario that has other, outside values.
Lemme try to explain
A = attacker A's hit
adamage = attacker A's damage
ahitpoints = attacker A's hitpoints
B = attacker B's hit
and so on
In your scenario, this is how it would have to be written out using maths (A has 10 hp, 50% to hit, always goes first, and does 20 points. B has 20 hp, 100% to hit, and does 10hp)
Ahitpoints = 10
Bhitpoints = 20
1: (A=random integer 1:100)
If A > 50, then adamage=20
Bhitpoints = bhitpoints - adamage
if Bhitpoints <= 0, goto (end of combat)
else
(B=random integer 1:100)
If B <= 100, then bdamage=10
Ahitpoints=Ahitpoints-bdamage
If Ahitpoints<= 0 then goto (end combat)
else
goto 1
As any fool can plainly see, it's not a formula where you're just figuring averages because you're throwing in an outside variable that A always goes first. You're blinding ignoring order of operations.
So can you please stop with this horrible example?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588577Old editions deliberately had rules of "you fail" for detecting traps so that people would be forced to pole dance to deal with them. It's very believable.
Which rules? In which game? In which book?
QuoteThe kind that pretend a Tarrasque is an actual threat, when it has no ranged attacks, no flight, nothing that would let it kill any party over about level 6... 10 at the absolute most.
First, that is only true assuming a featureless arena where you can fly indefinitely. In that case, the Tarrasque only has to (a) wait for the spell to wear off and kill you or (b) ignore you and kill everything else. Second, if you are not fighting in a featureless arena like, say, a dungeon, your aerial movement may be restricted like in a fucking cave. That is the reason why your analysis are as worthless as your math skills, kiddo.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588584Ok then
Imperator should consider going back on his meds, seriously
See, I am a trained clinical psychologist and the only retards I see here are both of you, and the only people with trouble recognizing reality are you both, again. So try and get a reality check before making any other statement that shows how fucking stupid you are.
QuoteSo yeah White Wolf games have terrible mechanics and "actual play" in those games is 90% MTP. I find it hard to believe people don't know this already.
What is your experience with those games? Are you making shit up like the idiot GC made about Predator's Taint? Have you played these games with real, non disfunctional people?
Quote from: -E.;588591I'm not sure. It looks to me like these guys are either not playing traditional game (which is odd since they're talking like they play D&D) or their DM has convinced them that they're winning because their characters are somehow "optimized" (rather than that they're winning because the DM chooses not to use his authority to beat them).
I'm wondering if it's possible that they're very disturbed by the idea that their in-game success is the result of DM kindness (rather than skill at building characters or something), and that's resulting in the weird math stuff and the ad hominem remarks.
Cheers,
-E.
Could be. They also don't seem to be able to understand the concept of different difficulty levels for games. It reminds me of those young computer games players that don't know how much fun it is to play games that only have a 'hard' setting and don't have lots of save points. They'll grow out of it, if they've got any of the right stuff in them.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588588I'm saying people either:
1: Skipped low levels.
2: Outright cheated to remove the constant death from the game.
3: Made a bunch of houserules so 1st level characters have around 60 HP or something stupid.
That's funny, because in the recentmost, still ongoing 1E AD&D campaign I'm playing in, I've played 4 PCs so far, all of them rolled up at 1st level, never cheating, and not using any houserules. Out of the 4, two have reached level 7-9 and are still alive.
At this point, I guess you can either:
- Accuse me of outright lying about my personal experience, in which case I'll follow up by respectfully asking you to eat shit and die in a fire,
- Try to move goalposts and claim you've really meant "the majority of players" or some other weasely bullshit, in which case please refer to previous follow-up plan,
- Conveniently pretend this post of mine has never happened, because, after all, if you don't hear the resounding rebuttal of your bullshit than the rebuttal has never happened; please refer to standard follow-up plan,
or
- Admit that you've been spouting baseless bullshit without the least shred of grounding in actual reality let alone personal experience. But really, who am I fooling, that's not going to happen.
Quote from: Premier;588600That's funny, because in the recentmost, still ongoing 1E AD&D campaign I'm playing in, I've played 4 PCs so far, all of them rolled up at 1st level, never cheating, and not using any houserules. Out of the 4, two have reached level 7-9 and are still alive.
What I'm about to say isn't meant to toot my own horn by any means, but is to illustrate that I've got a pretty big sample size to go off of.
I've been playing AD&D consistently for over 30 years. 6 years of that was in the military where people joined and left the gaming group often. I would say over this time, I've probably personally gamed with over 100 people.
Houserules were used about 75% of the time. That houserule? Start with max hp. Not 60 hp or whatever else bullshit. 4 hp for MUs, 6 for thieves, 8 for clerics, and 10 for fighters (plus whatever con bonus). About 10% of the time we did start at level 2 or 3, but that was only when starting an adventure that was for level 2 or 3.
They've never played the game, I doubt they've even read the books, and are here only to troll. It keeps them busy.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588601They've never played the game, I doubt they've even read the books, and are here only to troll. It keeps them busy.
Well, I guess that's something. I mean, otherwise all that troll energy would be pent-up and eventually make them write the next F.A.T.A.L. or RaHoWa.
Quote from: -E.;588591I'm not sure. It looks to me like these guys are either not playing traditional game (which is odd since they're talking like they play D&D) or their DM has convinced them that they're winning because their characters are somehow "optimized" (rather than that they're winning because the DM chooses not to use his authority to beat them).
I'm wondering if it's possible that they're very disturbed by the idea that their in-game success is the result of DM kindness (rather than skill at building characters or something), and that's resulting in the weird math stuff and the ad hominem remarks.
Cheers,
-E.
More like...
We want to succeed on our own merits. In 3.x it is possible to do so, prior to that it is not. If you can only succeed because the DM nicely allows you to succeed you fail. Conversely, if you can deal with intelligent, dangerous opponents played as such you win.
Being successful, winning at D&D if you'd prefer is a factor of building effective characters but it's also a factor of playing them well, of both getting and using resources well. So if say, I made a character and gave it to a basket weaver they'd still die horribly because they couldn't use it right, and they'd probably do something like turn a fairly standard Wizard into a Fireball spammer or something noobish like that.
Quote from: -E.;588592Intellectual dishonesty would be if someone with 5 HP would always survive 1d6 damage
That would be wrong, but I don't see anyone saying that. Can you articulate the intellectual dishonesty you're talking about?
People have actually said this, in response to "all level 1 characters die in 1-2 hits" some morons then claimed they don't, and then proved they don't know the difference between a hit and an attack, and likewise they didn't know the difference between "falls into a pit" and "might fall into a pit". Notice the difference between it being a foregone conclusion the attack connected successfully and that not being yet certain?
QuotePeople either skipped lower levels or had house rules to make the game more survivable
What if they didn't? What if they just played so first level characters died a lot (and the player would bring in another one)?
I get that's not your preference, but are you saying that it's impossible? That it never happened?
Well then what happened is they suicide shuffled their way through until the game actually began and they could actually start caring about their characters. Which is also something I said, and also something they argued with.
QuoteOMG High Level Encounter?
I think you missed my point -- I didn't say "OMG High Level Encounter" -- I said that a traditional DM can put in anything he wants so it doesn't matter how optimized your character is.
I mean, come-on -- your solution to being in a room with 100 giant French monsters was to *fly,* right? The ceiling would stop that, and you'd die.
Or maybe these are flying giant monsters. The point is, with a traditional DM it doesn't matter how optimized you are: the DM can put in anything he wants.
Well if you define traditional as fuck you, you die... Yeah, I don't think I can really argue with that. After all, traditional means like in the old days, and that's exactly how the old editions went.
And if you want to make the game an exercise in it doesn't matter what you do, fuck you you die? Well, I presume that is why you're playing the older editions.
Some of us like our choices, our decisions to actually matter and to have choices and decisions. Some of us are not basket weavers.
Quote from: Imperator;588598Which rules? In which game? In which book?
D&D pre 3rd. It's called a Find/Remove traps rating of "Too goddamn low to find and remove traps, especially since you have to both Find and Remove the traps".
So you start with like a 40% chance and have to succeed twice so that's actually 16%... meaning 84% you are hit by the trap anyways. And then you go up a few levels, and just when you might reach the point where you can do your job correctly more frequently than a weatherman all the traps that matter become magical, thereby halving your chances. And since the rating caps at 95%, this puts your maximum chance at disarming the traps that actually matter at around 20%.
So if you want to actually deal with traps successfully, you start pole dancing and you leave the worthless thief at home.
QuoteFirst, that is only true assuming a featureless arena where you can fly indefinitely. In that case, the Tarrasque only has to (a) wait for the spell to wear off and kill you or (b) ignore you and kill everything else. Second, if you are not fighting in a featureless arena like, say, a dungeon, your aerial movement may be restricted like in a fucking cave. That is the reason why your analysis are as worthless as your math skills, kiddo.
It's a stupid monster. You fly over it and move on. It's welcome to go eat the gimpy, non flight having Fighter and Rogue. See if I care.
QuoteSee, I am a trained clinical psychologist and the only retards I see here are both of you, and the only people with trouble recognizing reality are you both, again. So try and get a reality check before making any other statement that shows how fucking stupid you are.
Oh look, someone who is a mental health expert on the Internet. And yet is getting played like a lute by a bored powergamer. What's that say about you?
What is so wrong about seeing your character die, exactly, when creating a character takes at most 10 minutes to come up with, equipment included?
I will be the first to say, about the edition you specifically know fuck all about, Mr. GC, aka AD&D First Edition, that playing by-the-book, or close enough, this is actually a deadly, challenging game at low levels. Premier's example with 2 characters surviving to high level (level 7-8 is actually high level in this particular context) out of the initial 4, is representative to me of what an experienced player can achieve, which is, the game is still challenging and dangerous, but you can manage to have some characters survive to those levels.
However, it is not uncommon, particularly for inexperienced players, to see them go through a good six or seven characters before one makes it to level 3-4. And leveling up in itself takes a lot more time than it does in 3rd ed, not even counting training costs and requirements.
Some people actually like this. Actually like the fact that character survival is not a given "because plot", that you have to play the game intelligently to see your character survive. Part of the pleasure of playing role playing games to a lot of people is learning to play together, to get into the zone together, so to speak, and effectively play the same game. It's not so much about reading the DM's mind as it is about learning to play together and find that sweet spot where everyone feels there are choices and agency and surprises in the sense that the game takes a life of its own and ends up satisfying everyone involved.
I think people who feel they need to have rules to hold the DM by the balls have a problem playing with others to begin with. There's no trust involved, and from there, in my experience, the game can only go downward, not up.
Now, some gamers like to play twink builds and power game to their heart's content. That's fine by me. It's actually a valid play style, and there's nothing wrong with it per se. But if you want this to become the standard of role playing games and raise it on a pedestal as THE superior play style we must all bow down to, you are going to be sorely disappointed, because we are not going away.
Now build your twink games all you want, play the shit out your builds, but don't expect us to follow your example when we have played for decades ourselves and kind of know what's right and wrong for ourselves at a game table. So, in conclusion, you like to play builds and twinks and enjoy playing with other twelve-year-olds? Cool. You want to school us about the one true way of role playing? Kindly go fuck yourself. Thank you.
Quote from: Benoist;588612What is so wrong about seeing your character die, exactly, when creating a character takes at most 10 minutes to come up with, equipment included?
Mechanically, it may take 10 minutes to generate a character. But for me, there's a lot more invested than just the mechanics. I like to 'role-play', so I have to come up with a personality, motivations, history, etc, for my character. Since I don't like to play 'Spike the Fighter #38', this takes a lot more than 10 minutes, usually. Even if it is included in the 10 minute prep time, it involves an emotional investment. The more frequent and arbitrary death is, the less inclined I am to make that emotional investment.
I don't mind if characters die, but if I'm playing a game that some would term a 'suicide treadmill', that's not going to work for me.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588615Mechanically, it may take 10 minutes to generate a character. But for me, there's a lot more invested than just the mechanics. I like to 'role-play', so I have to come up with a personality, motivations, history, etc, for my character.
I understand your frustration.
I like to role play as well: you might have noticed from such threads as "Is horror a feminine emotion? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=588230#post588230)"; I can come up with a first level character in 10 minutes, come up with a personality, motivations, elements of background and be immediately invested in my character. All I need is a few adjectives describing the character's starting demeanor, an idea of the character's motivations (bullet points, one or two sentences), and maybe a paragraph of background, if that. This is enough for me to extrapolate and actually be immersed in that character's persona immediately, like I do all the time with NPCs when I DM, all the while knowing that the actually "history" of the character is going to be what is later remembered of the actual adventure, the game play itself.
I'm also fine with the prospect of seeing the character die, because I'm not playing a "story" and my character isn't a "narrative device". I'm living in my character's skin, and if that means he dies, he dies. I create a new character, maybe use the previous one as some kind of hook to get the new one into the game, and I keep on playing with a new alter-ego. No problem on my part.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;588615Mechanically, it may take 10 minutes to generate a character. But for me, there's a lot more invested than just the mechanics. I like to 'role-play', so I have to come up with a personality, motivations, history, etc, for my character. Since I don't like to play 'Spike the Fighter #38', this takes a lot more than 10 minutes, usually. Even if it is included in the 10 minute prep time, it involves an emotional investment. The more frequent and arbitrary death is, the less inclined I am to make that emotional investment.
I don't mind if characters die, but if I'm playing a game that some would term a 'suicide treadmill', that's not going to work for me.
Nothing wrong with that at all. The point is though, some do prefer a tougher grind at early levels. It is entirely dependant on playstyle.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588588I'm saying people either:
1: Skipped low levels.
2: Outright cheated to remove the constant death from the game.
3: Made a bunch of houserules so 1st level characters have around 60 HP or something stupid.
I ran an AD&D 2nd edition campaign a few months ago. We started at first level with bog standard characters. Stats were 4d6 drop lowest, in order. We gave everyone maximum possible hit points at first level, which is a common house rule (so 10+Con mod for fighters, 4+Con mod for wizards, etc). Other than that we used no houserules and we played the rules as written with no fudging of any kind. All my rolls were out in the open. The characters ran through a dungeon I designed and cleared out the whole place, getting to level 3 in the process. No PCs died, although we had a lot of near misses and about 4 situations that were inches away from a TPK.
So we did none of the things on your list, played it straight up, and had a blast. It can be done.
Quote from: Benoist;588612What is so wrong about seeing your character die, exactly, when creating a character takes at most 10 minutes to come up with, equipment included?
It isn't that characters die that's the problem. After all even the good ones die, it's just much less common. It's that they're dying all the time, which prevents you from getting attached to them or regarding them as anything other than a chess piece to move around the board. Now, given that every pro basket weaver argument is essentially "It's all about the roleplay!" you can see where the problem with this lies.
Along the same lines, even when it takes 10 minutes to make a character in such scenarios it takes less than 10 to need a new one. Again, I hope you can see the problem.
People like me, that want to actually get involved in the game, and not constantly be thrown out of it therefore seek to minimize character death so that we can continue playing the same character for long periods, though really even "a single gaming session" would be long by basket weaver standards.
QuoteSome people actually like this. Actually like the fact that character survival is not a given "because plot", that you have to play the game intelligently to see your character survive. Part of the pleasure of playing role playing games to a lot of people is learning to play together, to get into the zone together, so to speak, and effectively play the same game. It's not so much about reading the DM's mind as it is about learning to play together and find that sweet spot where everyone feels there are choices and agency and surprises in the sense that the game takes a life of its own and ends up satisfying everyone involved.
This sounds more like an anti basket weaver argument. The only problem with that is you're presenting it as the opposite, in a game where skill does not matter and often times is deliberately hardcoded out of the game.
White Plume Mountain, the so called paragon of gaming skill is full of have x item, y ability, or z stat or die, not a single problem is actually solvable with "creativity", as defined by the basket weavers and often times such is specifically disallowed, such as a door you explicitly cannot stop from sealing you in a room via any means, a door you specifically cannot open unless you have the fuck you key from the fuck you encounter from the previous area, and the room with fuck you you die unless you find the one singular solution that even if you try it, won't seem to work.
QuoteI think people who feel they need to have rules to hold the DM by the balls have a problem playing with others to begin with. There's no trust involved, and from there, in my experience, the game can only go downward, not up.
Hold the DM by the balls? No. Keep the power tripping douchebags well the fuck away? Absolutely. Old editions are games that encourage you to be dicks to your friends. So even if you aren't gaming with douchebags, you now are.
QuoteNow, some gamers like to play twink builds and power game to their heart's content. That's fine by me. It's actually a valid play style, and there's nothing wrong with it per se. But if you want this to become the standard of role playing games and raise it on a pedestal as THE superior play style we must all bow down to, you are going to be sorely disappointed, because we are not going away.
Now build your twink games all you want, play the shit out your builds, but don't expect us to follow your example when we have played for decades ourselves and kind of know what's right and wrong for ourselves at a game table. So, in conclusion, you like to play builds and twinks and enjoy playing with other twelve-year-olds? Cool. You want to school us about the one true way of role playing? Kindly go fuck yourself. Thank you.
If only the basket weavers would just go away... the fact of the matter is they spam their petty obstructionist bullshit everywhere, and are ultimately the reason why good tabletop gamers are near nonexistent (either because they left, or were ruined by bad players, or whatever).
At the end of the day though the people that are actually roleplaying their characters are the ones that are
not playing good aligned characters that nonetheless sociopathically sling civs into danger zone, all the while talking about how righteous they are. They're the ones telling the civs to stay at home and leave this to them. And usually, they get the job done. Occasionally it doesn't work out, but if you want to accurately portray a character in a fictional world, it starts with not saying "Hey, I know I can barely beat up Glass Joe but I'm going to go pick a fight with Mike Tyson!"
At the end of the day, the actual roleplayers are the ones surviving from one adventure to the other.
At the end of the day, the actual roleplayers are the powergamers, and the so called roleplayers just fail at roleplaying and powergaming.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588609More like...
We want to succeed on our own merits. In 3.x it is possible to do so, prior to that it is not. If you can only succeed because the DM nicely allows you to succeed you fail. Conversely, if you can deal with intelligent, dangerous opponents played as such you win.
Being successful, winning at D&D if you'd prefer is a factor of building effective characters but it's also a factor of playing them well, of both getting and using resources well. So if say, I made a character and gave it to a basket weaver they'd still die horribly because they couldn't use it right, and they'd probably do something like turn a fairly standard Wizard into a Fireball spammer or something noobish like that.
People have actually said this, in response to "all level 1 characters die in 1-2 hits" some morons then claimed they don't, and then proved they don't know the difference between a hit and an attack, and likewise they didn't know the difference between "falls into a pit" and "might fall into a pit". Notice the difference between it being a foregone conclusion the attack connected successfully and that not being yet certain?
Well then what happened is they suicide shuffled their way through until the game actually began and they could actually start caring about their characters. Which is also something I said, and also something they argued with.
Well if you define traditional as fuck you, you die... Yeah, I don't think I can really argue with that. After all, traditional means like in the old days, and that's exactly how the old editions went.
And if you want to make the game an exercise in it doesn't matter what you do, fuck you you die? Well, I presume that is why you're playing the older editions.
Some of us like our choices, our decisions to actually matter and to have choices and decisions. Some of us are not basket weavers.
Success on your own merits in D&D 3.xThe challenges you run into in D&D 3.anything are determined by the DM. If the DM wants to screw you, you're screwed -- trivially -- no matter how optimized your character is.
Right?
There's no such thing as "winning" because you're not playing "against" anything. If the DM decides to give you a series of fair fights and you prevail, that's great but it's not that you "won" anything -- it's that DM decided not to (as you say), fuck you.
In previous versions of the game, that was no different.
I still don't see the intellectual dishonestyI'm still confused by what you were calling intellectual dishonesty around the use of averages.
Nothing I'm seeing here seems to support that charge. You're introducing something new, which is the statement "All level 1 characters die in 1-2 hits" which seems beside the point.
It also doesn't seem true: If those one-or-two hits do fewer than my HP, my character won't die. This seems so self evident, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but it can't be that all Level 1 characters automatically die in 1-2 hits.
Can you give me a little more context?
People Played First Level D&DI think it's clear that we agree that people can and do play 1st level D&D. You obviously don't like it, but when you say things in your earlier post that make it sound like you don't believe it happened, you come of as hard to take seriously.
Fuck You, you DieOlder versions of D&D had things like "Save or Die" poison and low level characters who could be easily killed by a single hit.
But that doesn't make modern D&D any less "Fuck You, You Die" except that people often choose not to play it that way.
Again, as I said above, the DM is free to set up any level of challenge he wants, right? It's trivially easy for the 3.x DM to set a level of challenge that would be as deadly or deadlier than AD&D.
Similarly, it doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 10 -- the DM has freaking infinite power, so he can set challenges that would be as deadly for 10th level D&D 3.x characters as Tomb of Horrors would be for 1st level AD&D characters.
Right?
So what we're really talking about here isn't so much game rules as conventions at the table. If you like to play characters who are unlikely to die and have lots of mechanical options, you can play those in any version of D&D out there.
Similarly, if a group wants to play a game that has a high death rate and PC's have fewer options, then they could do that with D&D 3.x as well.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: -E.;588625Success on your own merits in D&D 3.x
The challenges you run into in D&D 3.anything are determined by the DM. If the DM wants to screw you, you're screwed -- trivially -- no matter how optimized your character is.
Right?
There's no such thing as "winning" because you're not playing "against" anything. If the DM decides to give you a series of fair fights and you prevail, that's great but it's not that you "won" anything -- it's that DM decided not to (as you say), fuck you.
In previous versions of the game, that was no different.
You sound like a basket weaver. Sorry to disappoint you, but just because you can't make a character that can survive character creation in a game that does not explicitly attempt to kill you during character creation doesn't mean good players can't.
QuoteI still don't see the intellectual dishonesty
I'm still confused by what you were calling intellectual dishonesty around the use of averages.
Nothing I'm seeing here seems to support that charge. You're introducing something new, which is the statement "All level 1 characters die in 1-2 hits" which seems beside the point.
It also doesn't seem true: If those one-or-two hits do fewer than my HP, my character won't die. This seems so self evident, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but it can't be that all Level 1 characters automatically die in 1-2 hits.
Given that that is what this is about, it's not something new. And given your HP are so low 1-2 hits will take them... yeah. Even if they're just weak hits like 1d8... two swings and even the high HP guys will be down and out. This is true in all editions. Even 4th, which is notoriously non lethal... have an encounter all attack the same guy, see how long he lasts (hint: not very). The only thing that changes is the encounter size went up, so it shifts from "1-2 attacks" to "1-2 rounds of attacks" but since "1-2 attacks" is also often 1-2 rounds of attack...
QuotePeople Played First Level D&D
I think it's clear that we agree that people can and do play 1st level D&D. You obviously don't like it, but when you say things in your earlier post that make it sound like you don't believe it happened, you come of as hard to take seriously.
I believe people played it, but not that they
played it. You can see this in many things... such as the troll thread "What is best in gaming?" where people near universally value fluff over substance. It's safe to say when those here sit down to play D&D, what they are actually doing is playing pretend because D&D is too hard. And so when people do things like have low HP characters not die to the constant damage being thrown about, generally because they ignore that... I can't take them seriously.
QuoteFuck You, you Die
Older versions of D&D had things like "Save or Die" poison and low level characters who could be easily killed by a single hit.
But that doesn't make modern D&D any less "Fuck You, You Die" except that people often choose not to play it that way.
Again, as I said above, the DM is free to set up any level of challenge he wants, right? It's trivially easy for the 3.x DM to set a level of challenge that would be as deadly or deadlier than AD&D.
Modern D&D, once you get past the low levels is about skill matters. A gimpy, basket weaver party will die as often, or more often than an old school party of any quality. A good one will almost never die, despite all the deadly things about. The paradigm shifts from "Fuck you, you die" to "If you fuck up, you die". And that makes a world of difference. See, if you're dying constantly
to something that is your fault that is a problem you can fix. If you're dying constantly
to something you have no control over that's just bullshit.
And that is why you can have modern D&D games full of all manner of lethal encounters that don't really play fair at all, so you get things like Pouncing Flyby attacking self healing dragons as just one of the highlights of an encounter... and because you can actually do stuff about it, it's fine.
QuoteSimilarly, it doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 10 -- the DM has freaking infinite power, so he can set challenges that would be as deadly for 10th level D&D 3.x characters as Tomb of Horrors would be for 1st level AD&D characters.
Why am I unsurprised you recommended that? Hurr durr, read DM's mind or die =/= challenge. Stop this basket weaver nonsense, you actually seem fairly reasonable otherwise.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588630You sound like a basket weaver. Sorry to disappoint you, but just because you can't make a character that can survive character creation in a game that does not explicitly attempt to kill you during character creation doesn't mean good players can't.
Given that that is what this is about, it's not something new. And given your HP are so low 1-2 hits will take them... yeah. Even if they're just weak hits like 1d8... two swings and even the high HP guys will be down and out. This is true in all editions. Even 4th, which is notoriously non lethal... have an encounter all attack the same guy, see how long he lasts (hint: not very). The only thing that changes is the encounter size went up, so it shifts from "1-2 attacks" to "1-2 rounds of attacks" but since "1-2 attacks" is also often 1-2 rounds of attack...
I believe people played it, but not that they played it. You can see this in many things... such as the troll thread "What is best in gaming?" where people near universally value fluff over substance. It's safe to say when those here sit down to play D&D, what they are actually doing is playing pretend because D&D is too hard. And so when people do things like have low HP characters not die to the constant damage being thrown about, generally because they ignore that... I can't take them seriously.
Modern D&D, once you get past the low levels is about skill matters. A gimpy, basket weaver party will die as often, or more often than an old school party of any quality. A good one will almost never die, despite all the deadly things about. The paradigm shifts from "Fuck you, you die" to "If you fuck up, you die". And that makes a world of difference. See, if you're dying constantly to something that is your fault that is a problem you can fix. If you're dying constantly to something you have no control over that's just bullshit.
And that is why you can have modern D&D games full of all manner of lethal encounters that don't really play fair at all, so you get things like Pouncing Flyby attacking self healing dragons as just one of the highlights of an encounter... and because you can actually do stuff about it, it's fine.
Why am I unsurprised you recommended that? Hurr durr, read DM's mind or die =/= challenge. Stop this basket weaver nonsense, you actually seem fairly reasonable otherwise.
Still not understanding the Intellectual Dishonesty about "averages"You were passionately describing the nature of averages earlier in the thread -- I was trying to follow your reasoning, but you seem to have dropped it for weirdly absolute statements about "one or two" hits being absolutely lethal.
Firstly, if my 6 hit point character takes two 1hp hits, he doesn't die, so what you're saying is factually wrong -- but I think you know that.
If you're trying to make the point that low hit point characters are fragile, yes -- that's true. But I don't see anyone saying otherwise.
I'd encourage you to return to your (interesting, if somewhat hard to follow) accusation of intellectual dishonesty -- or ask yourself, if you're moving away from it is it because you were wrong about it (in which case I'd urge you to say that. You'll be taken more seriously if you admit your mistakes).
Played v. PlayedNot sure what you're on about here. But -- again -- I'm pretty sure you're not making sweeping, factually untrue statements.
Modern D&D and Basket-weaversWhat you're seeing as "skill" is really just more basket-weaving. You've mastered the details of a complex rules-set, but it really doesn't have anything to do with your odds of surviving unless the DM, in his infinite mercy, lets you live.
Right?
To the extent that you define skill in D&D as some kind of objective "character surviving" you're forgetting about the authority the DM has in the game.
You sound like you're very proud of your mastery of the 3.x rules, and I would consider that an accomplishment to be proud of, but your character isn't "surviving" because of your skill -- he's surviving because the DM, in each and every encounter, chooses not to kill him.
It's not like a computer game where there's an objective opponent and a mechanically impartial referee: it's a human-moderated game, so the "skill" that helps you survive isn't knowledge of the rules -- it's being good at "let's pretend."
If you're unconvinced, try this thought process: if you took your most optimized character into a game I was running, do you think that I -- staying completely within the rules -- couldn't design an encounter that would kill your PC?
Of course I could! Trivially, right? Any number of scenarios would be instantly lethal, and they're all legal -- I wouldn't do that, because it would be a dick move, but it should illustrate that you're basket-weaving along with everyone else... you're just telling yourself otherwise.
Cheers,
-E.
For those of you not following the parallel discussion on TGD. Let me interrupt your bitchfest to blow your mind.
Quote from: GC's original scenarioGood party starts off with divinations. They learn that they are up against:
A dragon.
A druid.
A psychic.
A shadow demon.
A pair of melee machines.
Various mooks.
From this they can deduce that:
They should have at least one person with See Invis and lots of Dispels for dealing with the big guys.
They should have Magic Circle so they are not mind fucked by the psychic.
They should all be flying so they are not one rounded by the melee machines.
They should be able to quickly put Wraithstrike on the melee so as to take out the dragon before it can move, otherwise people will likely die.
The druid is impossible to counter without knowing more about him, same for the shadow demon.
The mooks are dealt with by generic buffs and standard anti ranged defenses.
So they close in on the bell tower, cast Silence on it then take out the mooks quickly, spend a few rounds chasing the shadow demon around while it annoys the hell out of them, then they kill it before it can escape and warn the others. The group could leave now and do part two tomorrow, but let's say they don't.
Instead they keep advancing, take out the mooks outside as quickly as possible, then start systematically sweeping the main building. First they shake off the death blast, then kill its source... then they pick a door and kill either the psychic or the druid before he's really ready... and if they're fast they can get the other.
Then they come out, see they've gotten the dragon's attention already... it lasts long enough to get off one action, but with Greater Mirror Image and Wings of Cover the target survives at 3 HP. The melee machines come out last, see the all flying party, and either die or swim away in shame.
A few healing charges later and the party is fine.
Bad party vs same scenario:
At most they can learn about the dragon in advance. They're not even aware the other enemies exist, and as they'd get spotted 500 feet out from the bell tower they likely never will as the guards there can just rain down arrows and boulders... they won't do much at this range, but neither will the parties' attacks, and since it'd take 12-13 rounds to close the distance and get in there and longer to get out of engagement range the party will likely die even before considering they rang the bell, alerting everything in the area and giving the party about 5 minutes to GTFO or die to an overwhelming encounter. None of the major opponents need even reveal themselves as the group would die to the lowest mooks.
If by some miracle they actually survived that long they get brutally beaten down by the shadow demon... and not even the gods can help them deal with all the OTHER stuff all at once.
Now ever a lot of the Den had trouble with this.
Quote from: LM's proposed solution. (85% correct according to him)How too beat GC's scenario (at least LMs best guess)
Given the sort of stress these sorts of encounters put on spell slots the standard optimized conjurer and his band of gimps party that usually defines my existence in D&D would not be sufficient. You want to have high saves and reactive defenses on everyone. Really you need to have an all caster party otherwise you may as well just go home and weave baskets.
-I'd actually just ignore the bell tower and hit the main group. Given GC's description the group in the bell tower is too far out to effect things in the main building.
-Remember to cast all of your buffs before enter the building.
-You really want someone with mindsight to tell you where the monsters are in the building.
-Dim. Door right on top of one the casters and try to murder their face off in the surprise round. Try to finish the fight quickly before the other caster has time to buff.
-While you are fighting indoors try to keep the melee machines off you by webbing hallways.
-after both casters are dead take to the skies and try to fight the dragon in the open air since this dragon is melee speced and thus the ultimate closet troll
-now that the melee machines have no caster support they should be easy pickings finish them off and then do whatever else you have to do in the enemy base since the tower knows you are there and has raised the alarm.
-The lizardfolk are basically irrelevant as long as you still have time left on your fly spell if you're feeling greedy head over to the bell tower and kill their asses otherwise get the hell out of dodge (invis and Dim. Door help here)
-bask in the afterglow as you have just beaten D&D on lunatic mode.
Essentially you want to handle this like a wizard Seal Team 6. You don't just need a big pile of spells you have to use the efficiently and tackle encounters with solid tactics. Otherwise you still die like gimps.
With proper optimization instead you take down challenging encounters without the DM having to hold your hand.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624It isn't that characters die that's the problem. After all even the good ones die, it's just much less common. It's that they're dying all the time, which prevents you from getting attached to them or regarding them as anything other than a chess piece to move around the board. Now, given that every pro basket weaver argument is essentially "It's all about the roleplay!" you can see where the problem with this lies.
I could, if what you described was actually what was going on at these tables, but it simply isn't, or in any case, it is not even remotely as common as you think it is.
I play my characters, role play them. I get attached to them. It actually doesn't take that long to happen (I'd say for me, on average one or two sessions max, if the character works for me, which is the vast majority of cases really - I can count the number of characters that just didn't work role play wise for me, that I created and then played and thought "hm that isn't working, I can't play this guy" on the fingers of one hand, probably, and I've created hundreds of PCs, if not thousands, not to mention NPCs for my games).
I actually hate to regard my characters as empty husks or pawns to move around a board. Now don't get me wrong: I play with or without miniatures, with sketches, with 2D mats and boards, and with 3D miniatures set ups too, i.e. miniatures per se don't stop me from role playing my character. If you want an actual example of me running 3.5 D&D, Ptolus specifically, check out the blog I wrote about my actual play. (http://praemal.blogspot.com)
I role play my characters. And in a game like AD&D, I feel all the more investment in my characters given the actual danger they're in as they explore the dungeon (or whatever specific situation they face as we play). Getting invested in my character helps me consider the game situations seriously, from a tactical and strategic standpoint. Without it, what I'm basically doing is playing an elaborate wargame, and that's not what I'm here for when I sit down at a game table.
Lots of gamers who enjoy older editions of the game feel there's more at stake for them when the danger to lose their characters is real, and omnipresent. It means that character death will happen, otherwise the point would be moot (there's nothing worse for me than a DM who fudges dice or just spares the characters because he doesn't want to hurt the players or the "plot" or whatever), but it also means that investing yourself in your character is emotionally more rewarding. It is to me, in any case.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624Along the same lines, even when it takes 10 minutes to make a character in such scenarios it takes less than 10 to need a new one. Again, I hope you can see the problem.
That's just not the case. Take it from actual experience: when I started playing AD&D first ed when I was a kid, I went through more than six characters until one of them made it to level 2. I was 11 years old, and I wasn't especially bright when it came to playing the game. Yet I loved it. And when I had that character reach 2nd level then, it actually meant something. Of course, said character died as well, at level 3 if I'm remembering correctly. But then I played a Thief that made it actually pretty far (around level 5) before we had to call the game. These were my first games playing solo and trust me, my DM wasn't fudging to keep me alive. That was tough. And also very rewarding.
Now, I think that's a pretty fair assessment of what the game plays like when you're inexperienced, discover it for the first time and play your first games with a DM who's not out to keep your character alive. The level 1 characters that never made it to level 2 were played I would say... around two sessions of about two, three hours each (we were playing every evening). That's not the 'less than 10 minutes' you describe. And in about two sessions, you get attached to your character. At least I do.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624People like me, that want to actually get involved in the game, and not constantly be thrown out of it therefore seek to minimize character death so that we can continue playing the same character for long periods, though really even "a single gaming session" would be long by basket weaver standards.
Now give me a fair, complete answer: which exact editions have you played? How old were you, and how many games have you played? How about DMed?
Lastly, how many other role playing games have you played and/or ran? Which ones?
I want to understand where you are coming from on this.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624This sounds more like an anti basket weaver argument. The only problem with that is you're presenting it as the opposite, in a game where skill does not matter and often times is deliberately hardcoded out of the game.
White Plume Mountain, the so called paragon of gaming skill is full of have x item, y ability, or z stat or die, not a single problem is actually solvable with "creativity", as defined by the basket weavers and often times such is specifically disallowed, such as a door you explicitly cannot stop from sealing you in a room via any means, a door you specifically cannot open unless you have the fuck you key from the fuck you encounter from the previous area, and the room with fuck you you die unless you find the one singular solution that even if you try it, won't seem to work.
I wouldn't call White Plume Mountain a "paragon of gaming skill".
I've seen your thread about the module on TGD. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53702)
How many times have you played, or ran, the module?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624Hold the DM by the balls? No. Keep the power tripping douchebags well the fuck away? Absolutely. Old editions are games that encourage you to be dicks to your friends. So even if you aren't gaming with douchebags, you now are.
Not really. They don't encourage you to be dicks to your friends. If some DM somewhere was a dick to you when you played some D&D game, 2nd edition and otherwise, I would understand where you are coming from, though. Is that the case?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624If only the basket weavers would just go away... the fact of the matter is they spam their petty obstructionist bullshit everywhere, and are ultimately the reason why good tabletop gamers are near nonexistent (either because they left, or were ruined by bad players, or whatever).
Which games have you actually played, besides D&D, all editions included?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624At the end of the day though the people that are actually roleplaying their characters are the ones that are not playing good aligned characters that nonetheless sociopathically sling civs into danger zone, all the while talking about how righteous they are. They're the ones telling the civs to stay at home and leave this to them. And usually, they get the job done. Occasionally it doesn't work out, but if you want to accurately portray a character in a fictional world, it starts with not saying "Hey, I know I can barely beat up Glass Joe but I'm going to go pick a fight with Mike Tyson!"
Sounds to me like you are building a variant of the Stormwind Fallacy. If it is true that there is no direct opposition between "role playing" and "optimizing a character", there also isn't an opposition between "playing an old edition of the game" and "role playing your character". I hope my own examples were demonstrative, in that regard.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624At the end of the day, the actual roleplayers are the ones surviving from one adventure to the other.
I don't think so. Actual role players are people who role play their characters. There's no link I can see between survival and "actual role playing". Ask any GM worth his salt: you can role play characters on the spot coming up with broad outlines and a few stats. And I mean that really literally: the vast majority of GMs actually do that all the time. I role play my NPCs just like I role play PCs. Also, as I described in another thread, I can role play characters with a paragraph of background, just like I can role play them after writing 24 pages of past experiences. It's about what feels right for me to play each particular characters, and what I come up with prior to play will vary.
Some people like all sorts of things and feel comfortable with all kinds of role playing granularities, so to speak. The fact that you wouldn't be able to relate with people who get invested with their characters on the spot doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or can't exist. It can, and it does.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624At the end of the day, the actual roleplayers are the powergamers, and the so called roleplayers just fail at roleplaying and powergaming.
That's the reverse of the Stormwind fallacy you are spelling out here, and it's just as wrong. You don't have to optimize a character to be able to role play it, just like optimizing a character doesn't make you necessarily an inept role player.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588588I'm saying people either:
1: Skipped low levels.
2: Outright cheated to remove the constant death from the game.
3: Made a bunch of houserules so 1st level characters have around 60 HP or something stupid.
Can you recall any details of the time(s) you observed people doing these things? I ask only because, frankly, I don't find you credible.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588630You sound like a basket weaver. Sorry to disappoint you, but just because you can't make a character that can survive character creation in a game that does not explicitly attempt to kill you during character creation doesn't mean good players can't.
You are talking about Traveller, not AD&D. I am rather surprised you know anything about Traveller, or even that it existed.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588577The kind that pretend a Tarrasque is an actual threat, when it has no ranged attacks, no flight, nothing that would let it kill any party over about level 6... 10 at the absolute most.
:jaw-dropping:
:rotfl:
Awesome.
Quote from: -E.;588635If you're unconvinced, try this thought process: if you took your most optimized character into a game I was running, do you think that I -- staying completely within the rules -- couldn't design an encounter that would kill your PC?
Of course I could! Trivially, right? Any number of scenarios would be instantly lethal, and they're all legal -- I wouldn't do that, because it would be a dick move, but it should illustrate that you're basket-weaving along with everyone else... you're just telling yourself otherwise.
Cheers,
-E.
+1 a few thousand times.
Quote from: -E.;588635Still not understanding the Intellectual Dishonesty about "averages"
You were passionately describing the nature of averages earlier in the thread -- I was trying to follow your reasoning, but you seem to have dropped it for weirdly absolute statements about "one or two" hits being absolutely lethal.
Firstly, if my 6 hit point character takes two 1hp hits, he doesn't die, so what you're saying is factually wrong -- but I think you know that.
Except for the part where you're not hit for one, you're hit for three, or five, or ten.
QuoteIf you're trying to make the point that low hit point characters are fragile, yes -- that's true. But I don't see anyone saying otherwise.
There actually are.
QuoteI'd encourage you to return to your (interesting, if somewhat hard to follow) accusation of intellectual dishonesty -- or ask yourself, if you're moving away from it is it because you were wrong about it (in which case I'd urge you to say that. You'll be taken more seriously if you admit your mistakes).
It's not hard to follow. If you think it is, you are beyond help and so I'm moving past it because I'm not going to get a lifelong blind man to understand the concept of color.
QuotePlayed v. Played
Not sure what you're on about here. But -- again -- I'm pretty sure you're not making sweeping, factually untrue statements.
It's easy to not die to the brutal rules when you ignore them. Again, if you can't grasp basic concepts just stay out of this.
QuoteModern D&D and Basket-weavers
What you're seeing as "skill" is really just more basket-weaving. You've mastered the details of a complex rules-set, but it really doesn't have anything to do with your odds of surviving unless the DM, in his infinite mercy, lets you live.
Right?
Hi Welcome
QuoteYou sound like you're very proud of your mastery of the 3.x rules, and I would consider that an accomplishment to be proud of, but your character isn't "surviving" because of your skill -- he's surviving because the DM, in each and every encounter, chooses not to kill him.
Just because you're a basket weaver doesn't mean we all are.
QuoteIt's not like a computer game where there's an objective opponent and a mechanically impartial referee: it's a human-moderated game, so the "skill" that helps you survive isn't knowledge of the rules -- it's being good at "let's pretend."
Just because your DM is a basket weaver doesn't mean mine is.
QuoteIf you're unconvinced, try this thought process: if you took your most optimized character into a game I was running, do you think that I -- staying completely within the rules -- couldn't design an encounter that would kill your PC?
I don't think you could. I do think it's possible, but it'd require the DM to do something like a level + 8 encounter, and then I, and my party would have to somehow fuck up seriously.
Except for the part where the rules say encounters almost never go that high, and if they do it's due to more fucking up (such as not killing enemies fast enough, so that they pile up and form an overwhelming fight instead of being a long chain of easier fights).
Now, what the fuck is your point? That I can't play perfectly? Never claimed I could. That my character is not invincible? Again, I deliberately used language like almost never die to suggest they were durable but not invulnerable.
If it's to claim that I can still die anyways, therefore I must be basket weaving even though I'm dying literally hundreds of times less than the basket weavers well here is my reaction:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588638For those of you not following the parallel discussion on TGD. Let me interrupt your bitchfest to blow your mind.
Now ever a lot of the Den had trouble with this.
Essentially you want to handle this like a wizard Seal Team 6. You don't just need a big pile of spells you have to use the efficiently and tackle encounters with solid tactics. Otherwise you still die like gimps.
With proper optimization instead you take down challenging encounters without the DM having to hold your hand.
And here's the parts Mistborn got wrong:
The dragon has a "melee attacks are now ranged" spell so fighting him inside is actually a good idea. Fighting him outside means eating lots of ranged full attacks from someone that can be anywhere on the battlefield at any time.
Skipping the bell tower is actually a bad idea... if they start seeing unusual activity (such as everyone coming out and fighting) they're going to ring the alarm and then jump you.
The lizardfolk are only ignorable as long as the bell isn't rung. If it is... it will likely take more than 5 minutes to complete your objectives here and the last thing you want is to get jumped by six dozen anythings right after finishing a series of hard fights.
Still, if he tried that approach it'd work a lot better than anything the basket weavers would try even though it would get him pincer attacked.
Quote from: Dan Vincze;588642Can you recall any details of the time(s) you observed people doing these things? I ask only because, frankly, I don't find you credible.
Well for starters there's this thread. If that's not enough you can check my post history, see the threads I have posted in and look at the posts by other people in those threads and you will see more of the same.
Quote from: StormBringer;588659You are talking about Traveller, not AD&D. I am rather surprised you know anything about Traveller, or even that it existed.
Yes, that is a game that
is explicitly trying to kill you during character creation. Note the distinction.
I'm rather glad to see this thread has taken such an interesting turn. It's good to see people giving GC and LM the opportunity to behave like members of a community. It would be even better to see them participate.
E makes some great points, particularly that optimization simply cannot save you. That's really solid. Kudos.
I predict that goalposts will soon be moved. Let's see.
I'm also hoping the realization that 3e is old starts setting in, because I see a false dichotomy being formed between 'old' and 'new'. 3rd edition is 'old' now, too, and simply cannot have been 'perfect' or there would be no market for new games.
Aside from Paizo, is d20 doing well? I didn't think it was.
Speaking of Paizo, what's the 'powergamer' take on their approach? I have yet to see anyone advocate it here. Perhaps because they deliberately modified part of the 'mastery' equation.
Quote from: mcbobbo;588664Speaking of Paizo, what's the 'powergamer' take on their approach? I have yet to see anyone advocate it here. Perhaps because they deliberately modified part of the 'mastery' equation.
The people at Pazio do not understand 3.5 at all and could not design their way out of a paper bag.
In Pathfinder non-casters are nerfed and the casters are riding the same awesome train.
Basically everything that makes Pathfinder well... Pathfinder and not just reheated 3.5 is unambiguously terrible.
It's still better than 4e though.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588667The people at Pazio do not understand 3.5 at all and could not design their way out of a paper bag.
So wait. Paizo dethroned WotC, is currently, arguably, the game company that is at the top of the food chain now, in terms of actual units sold and revenue, and you mean to tell me that these guys don't understand what they are doing?
What are your design credits, exactly? Time to put up or shut up. I'm all ears.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588667The people at Pazio do not understand 3.5 at all and could not design their way out of a paper bag.
In Pathfinder non-casters are nerfed and the casters are riding the same awesome train.
Basically everything that makes Pathfinder well... Pathfinder and not just reheated 3.5 is unambiguously terrible.
It's still better than 4e though.
I am no pathfinder fan but part of design is understanding your customers. It seems to me they designed a game that appeals to their customer base pretty well (last event we held all we saw was people playing pathfinder).
Quote from: Benoist;588670So wait. Paizo dethroned WotC, is currently, arguably, the game company that is at the top of the food chain now, in terms of actual units sold and revenue, and you mean to tell me that these guys don't understand what they are doing?
What are your design credits, exactly? Time to put up or shut up. I'm all ears.
Pazio does shit like print feats that literally do nothing. There is no defense for them.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;588674Pazio does shit like print feats that literally do nothing. There is no defense for them.
What are your design credits?
Also, it's spelled P-A-I-Z-O. Not "Pazio". ;)
Quote from: Benoist;588640I could, if what you described was actually what was going on at these tables, but it simply isn't, or in any case, it is not even remotely as common as you think it is.
I play my characters, role play them. I get attached to them. It actually doesn't take that long to happen (I'd say for me, on average one or two sessions max, if the character works for me, which is the vast majority of cases really - I can count the number of characters that just didn't work role play wise for me, that I created and then played and thought "hm that isn't working, I can't play this guy" on the fingers of one hand, probably, and I've created hundreds of PCs, if not thousands, not to mention NPCs for my games).
And that's only possible if they don't die more often than Kenny. Or are you denying this?
QuoteThat's just not the case. Take it from actual experience: when I started playing AD&D first ed when I was a kid, I went through more than six characters until one of them made it to level 2. I was 11 years old, and I wasn't especially bright when it came to playing the game. Yet I loved it. And when I had that character reach 2nd level then, it actually meant something. Of course, said character died as well, at level 3 if I'm remembering correctly. But then I played a Thief that made it actually pretty far (around level 5) before we had to call the game. These were my first games playing solo and trust me, my DM wasn't fudging to keep me alive. That was tough. And also very rewarding.
At least you are admitting that constant random death is a thing. Progress!
QuoteNow, I think that's a pretty fair assessment of what the game plays like when you're inexperienced, discover it for the first time and play your first games with a DM who's not out to keep your character alive. The level 1 characters that never made it to level 2 were played I would say... around two sessions of about two, three hours each (we were playing every evening). That's not the 'less than 10 minutes' you describe. And in about two sessions, you get attached to your character. At least I do.
If it took that long then you were likely going slow.
Someone in another thread used the whole dungeon with the spider and the limestone skeleton thing as an example of actual play in older editions. Ignoring that that story is in every edition except possibly 4th, in the first real fight one of the PCs is instantly killed by a single Ghoul... and there are 4 of them. Yet, they still held this up as an example of actual play... even though it completely burns up any notion that older editions weren't about a revolving door of death.
QuoteNow give me a fair, complete answer: which exact editions have you played? How old were you, and how many games have you played? How about DMed?
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, PF (big mistake), 4th (even bigger mistake).
10ish, somewhere in the teens, 18, don't remember, whenever it first came out, whenever it first came out.
I didn't start DMing until 3rd, and I lost count of the games I was involved in after 30.
QuoteLastly, how many other role playing games have you played and/or ran? Which ones?
I want to understand where you are coming from on this.
What I'd like for you, and the other people that keep bringing this up to understand is this:
Tabletop games require a DM and 4-6 players all playing the same game in the same place at the same time. We'll call it an even half dozen people total. Now even before considering other factors, such as "most players are bad players" we can clearly see that any game that isn't popular just isn't going to have the population base to find people willing to play it with you. Which ultimately means there's absolutely no reason to waste time and resources learning the rules of a game you can't play.
Further, if you are a writer of game rulebooks, and your son is 16 and just got hired at McDonalds a week ago he probably gets paid more and more consistently than you do.
Needless to say, tabletop game design does not attract a lot of talent, and as a result most games are utterly worthless. Even 3.5, which is comparatively less flawed still has a ton of critical problems... such that it isn't the difference between good and bad games so much as it is hard to salvage and impossible to salvage games. This also reflects in popularity... people don't play bad games, which due to the critical mass factor causes less to play them and so forth...
All of which means that at best, those other games can show you how not to design a game... but you can learn that more efficiently in other ways so there is just no reason to bother with them at all.
So why ask about some other games that we're not talking about, and that are not relevant? Trying for the dismissive "you don't play all these other shitty irrelevant games, so we can ignore you" fails a simple logic check.
QuoteI wouldn't call White Plume Mountain a "paragon of gaming skill".
I've seen your thread about the module on TGD. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53702)
How many times have you played, or ran, the module?
I wouldn't but some here have and did. So I looked at it, figuring there was a 95% chance they were wrong but just in case they got a natural 20 I wanted to see what they were on about. And I seen this. Over and over again. In hindsight I should not be surprised, as "being wrong" and "getting things backwards" is just something I've come to expect to see around these parts. Regardless, I was able to put the lie to their words in far less time than it took me to write all that despite never having seen that module before.
Which just makes me very glad that was my first exposure, because if I actually had to play this I'd have likely been far more opposed to D&D in general.
QuoteNot really. They don't encourage you to be dicks to your friends. If some DM somewhere was a dick to you when you played some D&D game, 2nd edition and otherwise, I would understand where you are coming from, though. Is that the case?
Have you read the rulebooks? Seriously, just read over them once. Any rulebook that dedicates around 2-3 pages specifically to discussing ways the DM can and should screw the party out of good horses is clearly not interested in you staying friends with your friends. And that's ignoring all the various trap related remarks that suggest the DM should take pleasure in their parties' hapless suffering.
QuoteSounds to me like you are building a variant of the Stormwind Fallacy. If it is true that there is no direct opposition between "role playing" and "optimizing a character", there also isn't an opposition between "playing an old edition of the game" and "role playing your character". I hope my own examples were demonstrative, in that regard.
No, I'm not. See, in order to roleplay your character you have to live, because you cannot roleplay if you are dead, and likewise if you're constantly dying you're not going to remain attached to your character and therefore will not roleplay. So optimization is required for roleplay, both so that you can continue playing, and portraying your character and because D&D is a game about killing things and taking their stuff, so if your character isn't capable of successfully doing this they should roleplay retiring for their own safety and that of others.
When you play an old edition of the game you're stuck in die constantly mode no matter what.
Quote from: mcbobbo;588664I'm rather glad to see this thread has taken such an interesting turn. It's good to see people giving GC and LM the opportunity to behave like members of a community. It would be even better to see them participate.
E makes some great points, particularly that optimization simply cannot save you. That's really solid. Kudos.
I predict that goalposts will soon be moved. Let's see.
I'm also hoping the realization that 3e is old starts setting in, because I see a false dichotomy being formed between 'old' and 'new'. 3rd edition is 'old' now, too, and simply cannot have been 'perfect' or there would be no market for new games.
Aside from Paizo, is d20 doing well? I didn't think it was.
Speaking of Paizo, what's the 'powergamer' take on their approach? I have yet to see anyone advocate it here. Perhaps because they deliberately modified part of the 'mastery' equation.
You don't see anyone advocating it because it's terrible.
See, when you have a game where casters = win, non casters = lose, you ideally fix this by making non casters better (since most enemies are either casters or non casters that are just better than you, so nerf casters means no one can deal with the enemies).
Paizo's take is to make casters = more win and non casters = more lose. And while it's true that if you want power, or options, or progress, or anything out of the game really other than "I attack. Again." you should be a caster because that's the only way to do it that doesn't mean it should be that way, that things working in that way is desirable, or that making the problem worse is a good thing.
So while 3.5 casters, despite their power can actually be threatened by things, in PF it's just win init, caster vs caster, whoever moves first wins. And every fight is like that (fights lacking a caster are an automatic loss for the deficient side, if both sides lack the monsters win by default).
You see, optimizers look for
depth within a game. Games that lack depth are worthless. In PF you do the equivalent of spam X to victory. There's just no point in it.
Quote from: Benoist;588670So wait. Paizo dethroned WotC, is currently, arguably, the game company that is at the top of the food chain now, in terms of actual units sold and revenue, and you mean to tell me that these guys don't understand what they are doing?
What are your design credits, exactly? Time to put up or shut up. I'm all ears.
Only because 4th fucked up worse.
These clowns nerfed
Monks. If you still think they have any clue, you're more hopeless than the Mearls supporters.
Quote from: Mr. GC;5886794th (even bigger mistake)
That must have been pretty short if you think 1st level enemies have 23ish AC.
Quote from: vytzka;588683That must have been pretty short if you think 1st level enemies have 23ish AC.
You still fail at reading comprehension I see. Because I'm feeling nice, I'll spell this one out to you for free. I said "as you level, you get less effective and less accurate". Now, why would you assume I was talking about level 1? You know, unless you are a dishonest fuck?
And because this is actually on topic here, at least somewhat productive, and the other thread was locked...
Quote from: RPGPundit;588658So, something that's never existed anywhere? I guess maybe it might exist in 4e or the most retarded styles of 3e play. But seriously, in old-school D&D whether you're an "effective character" has fuck all to do with what happens at character creation.
RPGPundit
If we're talking about older editions... you mean to tell me whether you get an "18/00" or a "5" has fuck all to do with character creation? Even though stats not only determine classes but how well those classes function? And that's just the easiest example.
Quote from: RPGPundit;588660Really? Given that this is the third largest general RPG forum around, I find that pretty hard to believe. Do you have links to occasions (ideally from "years ago" as you claim and not last week when the den started using it) where it was used in threads on ENworld or RPG.net?
Preferrably used by people who don't also have gamingden accounts.
RPGPundit
I don't know if ENWorld or RPG.net has used it. I don't follow either of those boards, given that they're backasswards. They probably know of it, but I know it's been used outside of the Den years ago. It's also been used by the Den years ago.
Google is mostly failing me but I still see it used in context on July 6 2011 on a board that is barely even related to D&D and I know it's been around at least a year or two longer than that. It doesn't help that Google's search algorithms are prioritizing discussions of literal basket weaving higher, though if you define it as "a useless thing" there's references from 2004 describing useless classes as part of a degree.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588687You still fail at reading comprehension I see. Because I'm feeling nice, I'll spell this one out to you for free. I said "as you level, you get less effective and less accurate". Now, why would you assume I was talking about level 1? You know, unless you are a dishonest fuck?
You don't really have a lot of cred, you could just admit you fucked up with the "need a 20 to hit" stuff. As you level, you get less accurate, that is true, because there's a bug in the maths. I don't remember and I'm too lazy to check if it's 2 or 3 points per the entirety of 30 levels. So to end up at 20+ at level 30 you need to start at 17+ at level 1.
Which is no, still fucking stupid.
If you have actual examples (unlike the 20+ stupidity) you could share them instead of having me guess what you have in mind. AC 23 was reasonable conclusion from your stupid maths. Now I'm getting AC 20 at level 1 which is still way dumb. If you don't like it, say what you mean exactly.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588679And that's only possible if they don't die more often than Kenny. Or are you denying this?
At this point I am pretty sure none of your cohort will ever understand this, but one more time: It's not his responsibility to deny the statement, it's your responsibility to support it. If you are unable to do so, it would be advisable to re-visit your conclusion an re-asses both the conclusion and the premises.
If you are
unwilling to do so, it shows your argumentation skill fails as hard as you do at RPGs, and you are aware of it but press on anyway. For example, several of us have patiently tried to explain basic math and averages on this thread, but you double down on your wildly incorrect ideas. You are
unable to support your contention, so you should re-evaluate your conclusion and probably premises. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, but you are
unwilling to provide further or different evidence, so your ability to argue the point is a complete failure.
Claims require evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And your claim is that 1st level AD&D characters die with a high frequency. Now prove it.
Also, pointing out Traveller has the chance to lose a character during generation neither proves it is 'trying to', nor that AD&D also has a chance of losing a character in generation. The first requires a good deal more evidence before even considering it seriously, the second is just blatantly false.
clueQuote from: Mr. GC;588687Google is mostly failing me...
clue
Quote from: StormBringer;588692clue
clue
Better ease up Stormy.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=588681&postcount=376
I think it's time to end this conversation, based on the above link.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588694Better ease up Stormy.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=588681&postcount=376
I think it's time to end this conversation, based on the above link.
Most likely. I am just hoping it sinks in for them this time around. I'm out.
Quote from: vytzka;588689You don't really have a lot of cred, you could just admit you fucked up with the "need a 20 to hit" stuff. As you level, you get less accurate, that is true, because there's a bug in the maths. I don't remember and I'm too lazy to check if it's 2 or 3 points per the entirety of 30 levels. So to end up at 20+ at level 30 you need to start at 17+ at level 1.
Which is no, still fucking stupid.
If you have actual examples (unlike the 20+ stupidity) you could share them instead of having me guess what you have in mind. AC 23 was reasonable conclusion from your stupid maths. Now I'm getting AC 20 at level 1 which is still way dumb. If you don't like it, say what you mean exactly.
What I actually said was that as you level up, you become less accurate. You came in with some moronic bullshit about "before you level up, you can't hit anything" which is not what I said at all. And this is exactly what I said the last time so why do you keep bringing this up?
By the way: It's around 9 points at 30, just by the default scaling. So if you start with a stat less than 20, aren't using +3 accurate weapons, don't have a magic item exactly up to date etc only hitting on a 20 is not only possible, it is very likely especially given your base accuracy is not especially high. And that's provided you're fighting things at your level and not things higher than your level.
Also, given that even if you do everything right and do manage to hit your attacks aren't going to dent anything if you seriously fuck up your build you seriously get the situation where you have a 5% chance to take off 1% and otherwise you waste your entire turn.
All of which means that in 4th edition optimization manages to be required, ineffective, and boring all at the same time. At least in 3.5 optimized characters kill things quickly and do not die quickly, and the game breaking stuff is interesting, and not just infinite damage or something boring. It should still be banned of course - no one is seriously advocating Pun-Pun, but when it isn't even fun to break something into many pieces it's a good sign everyone involved has failed.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588679And that's only possible if they don't die more often than Kenny. Or are you denying this?
I'm not denying that if your characters were to die "more often than Kenny", which I'd take to mean, in the context of an RPG, dying every single session once, this might represent some barrier for some players to get invested in their characters.
I am however denying from experience, playing the game with a DM who was not fudging and not keeping the training wheels on, that character death would occur every single session, or that the game is unplayable, or any variation thereof.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588679At least you are admitting that constant random death is a thing. Progress!
You are putting words in my mouth. Note that I didn't say that any instance of these 1st level character deaths were "random". Most of them actually had to do with me making some pretty blatant tactical and/or strategic mistakes.
Moreover, I wouldn't conflate the 'funnel' of 1st level characters having a hard time surviving until some of them make it to higher levels with the entirety of the campaign. Besides, a "campaign" here doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not "a story arc" or whatever. A campaign in this case means an ongoing game set in a particular setting, with players often having multiple characters of different levels, adventuring with varying groups, characters being killed off and created, and so on. It's not the same paradigm, in other words.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588679If it took that long then you were likely going slow.
Not particularly, no. Not any slower than most games I've seen ever since, in any case.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588679Someone in another thread used the whole dungeon with the spider and the limestone skeleton thing as an example of actual play in older editions. Ignoring that that story is in every edition except possibly 4th, in the first real fight one of the PCs is instantly killed by a single Ghoul... and there are 4 of them. Yet, they still held this up as an example of actual play... even though it completely burns up any notion that older editions weren't about a revolving door of death.
I don't know what example you are talking about. I probably missed it or don't remember it right off the bat so I can't comment on that.
Quote from: Mr. GC;5886791st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, PF (big mistake), 4th (even bigger mistake).
10ish, somewhere in the teens, 18, don't remember, whenever it first came out, whenever it first came out.
I didn't start DMing until 3rd, and I lost count of the games I was involved in after 30.
Okay. So you are telling me you have played First Edition until around 10ish level, but haven't DMed it.
New questions:
(1) How old were you?
(2) How many DMs have you played AD&D 1e with?
(3) How many characters did it take you to get one at 10ish level?
(4) Were you, or any other players, playing different characters at once? Were they the same level, all of them?
(5) How long, in real time, and at which frequency of play, did it take you to reach level 10ish?
This will help me understand better.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588679What I'd like for you, and the other people that keep bringing this up to understand is this:
Tabletop games require a DM and 4-6 players all playing the same game in the same place at the same time. We'll call it an even half dozen people total. Now even before considering other factors, such as "most players are bad players" we can clearly see that any game that isn't popular just isn't going to have the population base to find people willing to play it with you. Which ultimately means there's absolutely no reason to waste time and resources learning the rules of a game you can't play.
Further, if you are a writer of game rulebooks, and your son is 16 and just got hired at McDonalds a week ago he probably gets paid more and more consistently than you do.
Needless to say, tabletop game design does not attract a lot of talent, and as a result most games are utterly worthless. Even 3.5, which is comparatively less flawed still has a ton of critical problems... such that it isn't the difference between good and bad games so much as it is hard to salvage and impossible to salvage games. This also reflects in popularity... people don't play bad games, which due to the critical mass factor causes less to play them and so forth...
All of which means that at best, those other games can show you how not to design a game... but you can learn that more efficiently in other ways so there is just no reason to bother with them at all.
So why ask about some other games that we're not talking about, and that are not relevant? Trying for the dismissive "you don't play all these other shitty irrelevant games, so we can ignore you" fails a simple logic check.
OK. That's all fine and good, but you haven't answered my question.
Which other role playing games, other than D&D, have you played? Which have you GM'd?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588679I wouldn't but some here have and did. So I looked at it, figuring there was a 95% chance they were wrong but just in case they got a natural 20 I wanted to see what they were on about. And I seen this. Over and over again. In hindsight I should not be surprised, as "being wrong" and "getting things backwards" is just something I've come to expect to see around these parts. Regardless, I was able to put the lie to their words in far less time than it took me to write all that despite never having seen that module before.
Which just makes me very glad that was my first exposure, because if I actually had to play this I'd have likely been far more opposed to D&D in general.
So you are telling me you haven't run White Plume Mountain, or played it, correct?
Correlary question: do you think rules should be playtested?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588679Have you read the rulebooks?
Have you?
Have you actually read the First Edition PH or DMG? ALL you've said about First Edition, from the ability score generation that was wrong, to the rules about being below zero hit points that was wrong (you don't die at 0 HP, you're unconscious), to well... honestly now. EVERYTHING you've said so far about First Edition has been utterly, totally, completely wrong.
So I am asking you honestly: have you ever read the First Edition PH, or DMG, and if so, how long ago was it, and how old were you at the time?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588679No, I'm not. See, in order to roleplay your character you have to live, because you cannot roleplay if you are dead, and likewise if you're constantly dying you're not going to remain attached to your character and therefore will not roleplay. So optimization is required for roleplay, both so that you can continue playing, and portraying your character and because D&D is a game about killing things and taking their stuff, so if your character isn't capable of successfully doing this they should roleplay retiring for their own safety and that of others.
When you play an old edition of the game you're stuck in die constantly mode no matter what.
That experience doesn't pan out with mine at all: you are not "dying all the time" playing AD&D 1e, and I certainly can get in the skin of a character and get attached to them in no time.
The notion that optimization is required for role play is nonsensical to me. Purely, and simply. Role playing doesn't depend on success. It just occurs. You are either role playing your character, or you are not. Given that I don't have problems role playing my characters in AD&D First Ed, I have a hard time understanding where you are coming from on this.
I'm curious now to have answers to my questions above, because maybe they'll help me understand where these strongly held convictions of yours come from.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588663Except for the part where you're not hit for one, you're hit for three, or five, or ten.
There actually are.
It's not hard to follow. If you think it is, you are beyond help and so I'm moving past it because I'm not going to get a lifelong blind man to understand the concept of color.
It's easy to not die to the brutal rules when you ignore them. Again, if you can't grasp basic concepts just stay out of this.
Hi Welcome
Just because you're a basket weaver doesn't mean we all are.
Just because your DM is a basket weaver doesn't mean mine is.
I don't think you could. I do think it's possible, but it'd require the DM to do something like a level + 8 encounter, and then I, and my party would have to somehow fuck up seriously.
Except for the part where the rules say encounters almost never go that high, and if they do it's due to more fucking up (such as not killing enemies fast enough, so that they pile up and form an overwhelming fight instead of being a long chain of easier fights).
Now, what the fuck is your point? That I can't play perfectly? Never claimed I could. That my character is not invincible? Again, I deliberately used language like almost never die to suggest they were durable but not invulnerable.
If it's to claim that I can still die anyways, therefore I must be basket weaving even though I'm dying literally hundreds of times less than the basket weavers well here is my reaction:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Intellectual Dishonesty about using averagesAre you saying that I shouldn't expect an explanation of your calling people intellectually dishonest for calculating the average of die rolls?
That's a pity -- you were so certain above, and now you've backed up to just saying someone somewhere said first level characters weren't fragile.
I'm going to keep urging you to stand by your original statements or admit you were wrong and apologize - it's the manly thing to do. And saying that I'm not getting it after we've gone step by step together, and I can point to the post where you tried to change your claim, isn't convincing.
We're all Basket Weavers Down Here, MateMy point isn't anything about "playing perfectly" whatever that means -- it's about you thinking your success has anything to do with how well you know the rules and how optimized your characters are.
I mean you admitted that the DM could trivially kill even the most optimized character, right?
If that's true, then isn't it true that if you're succeeding in the game (what you call 'winning') is because the GM has simply decided not to kill you?
In the example up above, where a party goes after a bunch of magic bad guys -- it's not like those bad guys really exist, right? It's not like the PC's are outsmarting them with their 3l33t tactics and so-on, right? Their capabilities, their reactions, their knowledge and intelligence, are all decided on by the DM -- and he knows everything you're doing.
Your bad-ass-seal-team-six-success? It's an illusion he creates for you.
The illusion of being a tactical bad-ass is created because the DM decides to throw a challenge you can beat in the game, and then decide to let your tactics work -- and he does it in a way that lets you believe you're brilliant! Clearly you've got a pretty skilled DM, but don't mistake that for your own skill.
My guess is that your DM is aware of how little you like character death and how if he killed your character you wouldn't have fun -- so he throws these limited challenges at you, and you get this thrill of having overcome them.
Which is cool: fun gaming, right? But it's not because you're weaving the basket he's set up for you.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: GameDaddy;588511Define "basket weaver"
Mr. GC. He's a basketweaver from a small Appalachian community where no other RPGs besides D&D 4th edition are played. Every night his mom-sister chews him out for playing characters that aren't optimized for combat, which makes him cry, but is also the only real attention anyone in his family pays to him so he came to therpgsite for solace.
Though close to thirty years of age he never recieved a real education and didn't graduate high school, so his English and math skills are somewhat below that of a 3rd grader. In fact, he's actually typing in a weird pishogue language and having babelfish translate it for him before posting, which is why his posts make little sense.
Lord Mistborn is his transexual twin "sister" (actually once a conjoined twin).
Quote from: Benoist;588704I'm not denying that if your characters were to die "more often than Kenny", which I'd take to mean, in the context of an RPG, dying every single session once, this might represent some barrier for some players to get invested in their characters.
I'm thinking more than once per session, but even once per session is still about 20 times too high when talking about character attachment.
QuoteYou are putting words in my mouth. Note that I didn't say that any instance of these 1st level character deaths were "random". Most of them actually had to do with me making some pretty blatant tactical and/or strategic mistakes.
Dude, you're 1st level. You do everything right, one enemy rolls high on their to hit/THAC0/whatever you want to call it and down you go. It is, indeed just randomness.
QuoteMoreover, I wouldn't conflate the 'funnel' of 1st level characters having a hard time surviving until some of them make it to higher levels with the entirety of the campaign. Besides, a "campaign" here doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not "a story arc" or whatever. A campaign in this case means an ongoing game set in a particular setting, with players often having multiple characters of different levels, adventuring with varying groups, characters being killed off and created, and so on. It's not the same paradigm, in other words.
If it were just a single story arc that'd both make things better and worse. That said, treating it like an MMO setting is definitely not typical.
QuoteI don't know what example you are talking about. I probably missed it or don't remember it right off the bat so I can't comment on that.
In "actual examples of old school play" several people mention the sample dungeon thing. Where one PC instantly dies by one of four enemies. I forget if there were four PCs, or something like 5 or 6 but with 4 ghouls it's likely if they didn't cut off the example of actual play there, it'd consist of the entire party being killed by their first real fight (the joke encounter with the spider doesn't count).
QuoteOkay. So you are telling me you have played First Edition until around 10ish level, but haven't DMed it.
Nope. I answered your questions in sequence. That one was "how old were you".
Quote(1) How old were you?
(2) How many DMs have you played AD&D 1e with?
(3) How many characters did it take you to get one at 10ish level?
(4) Were you, or any other players, playing different characters at once? Were they the same level, all of them?
(5) How long, in real time, and at which frequency of play, did it take you to reach level 10ish?
Skipping what I've already answered, 3, never happened (too much random death), I think at some point we just started playing multiple characters or having new characters respawn in the dungeon or something to keep the game moving despite the constant death, and N/A.
QuoteOK. That's all fine and good, but you haven't answered my question.
Which other role playing games, other than D&D, have you played? Which have you GM'd?
I just said I regard those other games as pointless and worthless and not worthy of my time then elaborated as to how and why this is and pointed out how irrelevant it is to even ask. How is this not an answer?
Is "hell no" not clear enough?
QuoteSo you are telling me you haven't run White Plume Mountain, or played it, correct?
Correlary question: do you think rules should be playtested?
Course they should, but we're not talking about rules here. We're talking about a module where most of the scenarios are "fuck you and die", often going out of their way to specifically shut down most of the ways you'd not die (such as green slime that you can't "be clever" about and get off with oil, and instead must use your one Fireball, centered on yourself to deal with if you even have that still).
You don't need to actually play it to realize the likely outcome of a long series of fuck you and die encounters is that you are fucked and die. I mean, even the neutral reviews compare it to Tomb of Horrors which is an exercise in "guess what the DM is thinking, blow him, or hire a bunch of losers to do this shitty adventure for you" which, interestingly enough is exactly how Tomb of Horrors was won.
QuoteHave you?
Have you actually read the First Edition PH or DMG? ALL you've said about First Edition, from the ability score generation that was wrong, to the rules about being below zero hit points that was wrong (you don't die at 0 HP, you're unconscious), to well... honestly now. EVERYTHING you've said so far about First Edition has been utterly, totally, completely wrong.
So I am asking you honestly: have you ever read the First Edition PH, or DMG, and if so, how long ago, and how old were you?
At 10, a few years ago, and now.
We've been over ability scores already.
Changing from "you die" to "you are in a coma for an extended period and are still down in whatever dangerous situation" isn't much of a practical change. You're still going to die anyways at level 1 because healing is so limited that once you go down all that's changed is that your official death is time delayed a few rounds. So when we change the actual situation accordingly... not a whole lot does change.
QuoteThat experience doesn't pan out with mine at all: you are not "dying all the time" playing AD&D 1e, and I certainly can get in the skin of a character and get attached to them in about a session or two, the time for me to grow into them.
If you're living a session or two, then at the very least you've passed the suicide shuffling stage (meaning, you now have the stats to not instantly die in a fight).
QuoteThe notion that optimization is required for role play is nonsensical to me. Purely, and simply. Role playing doesn't depend on success. It just occurs. You are either role playing your character, or you are not. Given that I don't have problems role playing my characters in AD&D First Ed, I have a hard time understanding where you are coming from on this.
I'm curious now to have answers to my questions above, because maybe they'll help me understand where these strongly held convictions of yours come from.
So, do you mean to tell me that people regularly do dangerous things that
they are not good at?
Because last I checked, that isn't true at all. Even in the real world, which is far safer than any D&D world you get shit like this:
Non comprehensive list of physical, mental, and educational requirements to run into burning buildings and save people from them. (http://www.firecareerassist.com/html/firefighter_qualifications.htm)
Non comprehensive list of what is required to serve and protect in a general community. (http://education-portal.com/requirements_to_become_a_police_officer.html)
If you consider non civilian positions, the danger, and thus the standards rise further. Why aren't you allowed to work these positions if not qualified? Because it's not safe. And while there's no one in the D&D world there to stop you from signing on as a murdering hobo, you'd still have to question why you, or anyone would want to if not qualified.
So if you are not good at a dangerous thing and are doing it anyways that means you are 1: Roleplaying an insane character. 2: Not roleplaying. Because if you were roleplaying, you'd be roleplaying "Holy shit, this is dangerous. I'd better stay at home." You know, the reason why most people run
away from dangerous situations.
Needless to say the former is not trustworthy.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588698Also, given that even if you do everything right and do manage to hit your attacks aren't going to dent anything if you seriously fuck up your build you seriously get the situation where you have a 5% chance to take off 1% and otherwise you waste your entire turn.
Congrats. You have persuaded me. If you want to have a decent high level Fighter in 4e you have to start with not actively awful Strength (20 is hardly required), put most of your stat increases into Strength again, find magical weapons in your adventuring (I mean seriously, having magical items are a problem now for some reason? or you can just play with inherent bonuses and skip the issue entirely, not that you would know that) and pick whatever powers you want.
That is quite a burden compared to making an effective high level Fighter in the perfectly well designed d20 which requires merely... no, wait a second...
QuoteAll of which means that in 4th edition optimization manages to be required, ineffective, and boring all at the same time. At least in 3.5 optimized characters kill things quickly and do not die quickly, and the game breaking stuff is interesting, and not just infinite damage or something boring. It should still be banned of course - no one is seriously advocating Pun-Pun, but when it isn't even fun to break something into many pieces it's a good sign everyone involved has failed.
And now we get to the heart of the problem. 4e actually requires you to play the encounters and does not let your easy mode wizard skip them with a couple spells. Boo fucking hoo. Cry me a river, Justin Timberlake.
Maybe you meant to complain that 4e is not broken enough because that seems to be your issue.
Quote from: vytzka;588719Congrats. You have persuaded me. If you want to have a decent mid or high level [strike]Fighter[/strike] anything in 4e you have to start with [strike]not actively awful Strength[/strike] maxed prime stat including racials [strike](20 is hardly required)[/strike], put [strike]most[/strike] all of your stat increases into [strike]Strength[/strike] prime stat again, find magical weapons/implements in your adventuring [strike](I mean seriously, having magical items are a problem now for some reason? or you can just play with inherent bonuses and skip the issue entirely, not that you would know that)[/strike] and pick [strike]whatever powers you want[/strike] only the best standard powers for your build and spec or GTFO.
That is quite a burden compared to making an effective high level Fighter in the perfectly well designed d20 which requires merely... no, wait a second...
Which requires a lot of effort and yields results that are medicore at best. However mediocrity is far superior to what 4th offers. Just a basic Dungeoncrasher tripper who knocks enemies around and down has more and better distinct abilities than any 4th edition character and that is fucking sad.
Fixed.
QuoteAnd now we get to the heart of the problem. 4e actually requires you to play the encounters and does not let your easy mode wizard skip them with a couple spells. Boo fucking hoo. Cry me a river, Justin Timberlake.
Maybe you meant to complain that 4e is not broken enough because that seems to be your issue.
Play = grind for hours, finally kill them, forget why you were fighting them and not have the time for a second encounter.
Given that I'd happily take Wizard facerolling any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Of course I'd much prefer a game that actually engaged the Wizard, which is why I play D&D more like Dark Souls.
If I wanted to break it... last I checked Orbizards are a Wizard build and automatically win all games forever, so you can just choke on a barrel of cocks right there. I could also do infinite loops with other classes, but as I said before it's a game that's boring even when you're breaking it (and it is beyond trivial to break).
Awwww a one hit trip pony has more distinct abilities than a 4e Fighter, you're so cute. Dumb and dishonest as shit, but cute.
This circus has gone long enough. I have to stop clicking 'view post' every time, honest.
Quote from: vytzka;588730Awwww a one hit trip pony has more distinct abilities than a 4e Fighter, you're so cute. Dumb and dishonest as shit, but cute.
This circus has gone long enough. I have to stop clicking 'view post' every time, honest.
If you were both smart and honest you'd know that just about every 4th edition ability is "move enemies down and/or around, and also damage them". A Dungeoncrasher tripper (which actually does two things) does everything a 4th edition character of any class does except better (because their attacks will actually hit, and have better chances of moving enemies in the desired manners).
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715I'm thinking more than once per session, but even once per session is still about 20 times too high when talking about character attachment.
Are you saying you need 20 sessions to get attached to a character?
If not, how many sessions does it take for you to be able to role play a character, in your mind?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715Dude, you're 1st level. You do everything right, one enemy rolls high on their to hit/THAC0/whatever you want to call it and down you go. It is, indeed just randomness.
Well first, there's no THAC0 other than a monster reference in the DMG, in AD&D 1e. Another thing that spells clearly out loud that you don't know much about 1e, to me and the others who happen to know this game on this thread.
Now, if you do everything right, that's not what happens. If you do everything right, you have sneaked past the monsters, waited until they left camp to take their treasure when they weren't looking (GP accounts for about 2/3 of the XPs you're actually gaining, in my experience), created diversions, or ambushed them one by one so that you could kill them outright without them having the chance to reciprocate, etc. Now assuming you're not playing solo as I did, there are indeed plenty of ways in which you could kill a party of goblins, kobolds and the like on the surprise rounds. In other words, you survive because you don't put yourself in that situation where they roll against you with the chance to kill you outright at every encounter
in the first place. It's a shift in game play from expecting every encounter to play nicely at equal CR, for sure, but it works in the context of this game.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715If it were just a single story arc that'd both make things better and worse. That said, treating it like an MMO setting is definitely not typical.
There's no such thing as a "story arc" in my games.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715In "actual examples of old school play" several people mention the sample dungeon thing. Where one PC instantly dies by one of four enemies. I forget if there were four PCs, or something like 5 or 6 but with 4 ghouls it's likely if they didn't cut off the example of actual play there, it'd consist of the entire party being killed by their first real fight (the joke encounter with the spider doesn't count).
Is it conceivable for you that some players might know the game better than the players represented in the example you are speaking of, and manage the circumstances differently, in your mind?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715Nope. I answered your questions in sequence. That one was "how old were you".
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715Skipping what I've already answered, 3, never happened (too much random death), I think at some point we just started playing multiple characters or having new characters respawn in the dungeon or something to keep the game moving despite the constant death, and N/A.
Ahhh I see. I misread that part. Sorry.
So you were around 10 when you played AD&D First Ed. Now what I understand is that you never reached level 10ish playing the game, that you played with 3 different DMs at the time (were they about your age?), and that you can't answer the last question because you never reached 10ish level.
OK. That's helping. So, how long and at which frequency did you play AD&D 1e? Were your DMs around your age, too? What is the max level you reached in the game, ever?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715I just said I regard those other games as pointless and worthless and not worthy of my time then elaborated as to how and why this is and pointed out how irrelevant it is to even ask. How is this not an answer?
Is "hell no" not clear enough?
Well that's not an answer. Here's how this pans out:
Q: What RPGs have you played or ran?
A: No.
You don't answer "no" to a question that begins with "what", you see what I mean? I think it's relevant to me to understand where you are coming from, which is a different matter entirely than what you thought I was asking that for.
Now, which other RPGs have you played or run?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715Course they should, but we're not talking about rules here. We're talking about a module where most of the scenarios are "fuck you and die", often going out of their way to specifically shut down most of the ways you'd not die (such as green slime that you can't "be clever" about and get off with oil, and instead must use your one Fireball, centered on yourself to deal with if you even have that still).
You don't need to actually play it to realize the likely outcome of a long series of fuck you and die encounters is that you are fucked and die. I mean, even the neutral reviews compare it to Tomb of Horrors which is an exercise in "guess what the DM is thinking, blow him, or hire a bunch of losers to do this shitty adventure for you" which, interestingly enough is exactly how Tomb of Horrors was won.
That's where I actually disagree. I think that, especially where old modules are concerned, just reading them to make the kind of judgment you are making is misguided (to say the least). You need to play them to be able to see how different scenarios might play, and given you've just told me that you played AD&D when you were about 10-ish, I think your perception and extrapolation based on what's written on the page might be a tad off.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715At 10, a few years ago, and now.
At 10, I'll believe you looked at the charts in the books and read some spells' descriptions. Bonus question: you told me you were not a DM of 1e. Did you read the DMG? If so, to which extent? Did you read it cover to cover?
A few years ago, maybe, I'm also willing to believe you given I know what it is to read the PH and DMG and refresh my memory regularly about certain points of the rules.
Now? You're lying. You are not reading the PH and DMG of First Edition right now. Not by most people's standards of "reading" anyway. You just made way too many mistakes talking about 1e to lead me to believe that. As a matter of fact, I honestly can't remember if you said anything *correct* about 1e. Seriously.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715We've been over ability scores already.
Yes, and what you were saying was totally wrong as far as 1e was concerned.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715Changing from "you die" to "you are in a coma for an extended period and are still down in whatever dangerous situation" isn't much of a practical change.
It is, when the campaign assumes you are playing multiple characters and just phase one out for a while to play another and back and forth. Your problem here is that you're not seeing the context of the campaign and are thinking about it in terms of "1 player = 1 character" and "on the rails of the plot we go". That's not how a 1e campaign plays in practice.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715You're still going to die anyways at level 1 because healing is so limited that once you go down all that's changed is that your official death is time delayed a few rounds. So when we change the actual situation accordingly... not a whole lot does change.
Actually, keeping in mind that surviving at level 1 and doing things "right" (see above) basically means you are sneaking around, stealing the creatures treasure, ambushing them to get rounds of surprise and the like, that change is actually pretty significant. Not to mention, it's on par with 3rd ed's, which was your point when you brought up the wrong answer in the first place.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715If you're living a session or two, then at the very least you've passed the suicide shuffling stage (meaning, you now have the stats to not instantly die in a fight).
Actually not. You generally don't level up in one or two sessions to level 2. The advancement rate in AD&D 1e is much slower than what you know of 3rd ed.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715So, do you mean to tell me that people regularly do dangerous things that they are not good at?
Actually, being level 1 means that you're already a cut above the normal world. You're still within its boundaries, in the sense that you started dabbling in magic, you are a veteran of a few battles and the like, but you're already one cut above the level 0 populace (i.e. most of the population of the world). So stricto sensu, the PCs are characters who have just taken their first step into the wider, wilder world, above ground, and below.
As for humans doing things they have not attempted before, I'd say that yes, that's pretty much the story of the human race. Otherwise, we'd still be living in caves and killing each other with rocks to have the chance to pull a female to our side and that'd pretty much be the be-all, end-all of existence for us.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715Because last I checked, that isn't true at all. Even in the real world, which is far safer than any D&D world you get shit like this:
Non comprehensive list of physical, mental, and educational requirements to run into burning buildings and save people from them. (http://www.firecareerassist.com/html/firefighter_qualifications.htm)
Non comprehensive list of what is required to serve and protect in a general community. (http://education-portal.com/requirements_to_become_a_police_officer.html)
These people would be level 0 or level 1, in AD&D 1e parlance. Which means, yes, if you strike them with a broad sword there's a huge chance for them to die. If they fall in a pit trap they didn't see coming, there's a possibility they'll end up knocking their head and passing out, needing to recuperate at a hospital for the next few days. If they jump head on into flames and take on fire, flames are not "EL appropriate", and they die.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715If you consider non civilian positions, the danger, and thus the standards rise further. Why aren't you allowed to work these positions if not qualified? Because it's not safe. And while there's no one in the D&D world there to stop you from signing on as a murdering hobo, you'd still have to question why you, or anyone would want to if not qualified.
Because you are already one cut above the rest. You are level 1. Pretty much the rest of the mundane world is level 0.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588715So if you are not good at a dangerous thing and are doing it anyways that means you are 1: Roleplaying an insane character. 2: Not roleplaying. Because if you were roleplaying, you'd be roleplaying "Holy shit, this is dangerous. I'd better stay at home." You know, the reason why most people run away from dangerous situations.
Needless to say the former is not trustworthy.
Not at all. It just means you haven't considered all the parameters of play and don't know what you are talking about, as far as AD&D 1e is concerned. From there you have basically two options: (1) go "Oh OK! I didn't see that way!" and basically admit you don't know what you're talking about, maybe talking about the games a little while longer with me or others here, maybe rereading your 1e books for the first time in ... ever? Or (2) continue to claim you know what you are talking about while you have gotten pretty much every single little detail you could come up with about AD&D 1e wrong, and remain the laughing stock of this board.
Assuming you stay long enough without being so much of a shithead you are banned, of course.
Remember the fate of your buddy Lord Mistborn.
Your choice.
Quote from: Benoist;588736Now, if you do everything right, that's not what happens. If you do everything right, you have sneaked past the monsters, waited until they left camp to take their treasure when they weren't looking (GP accounts for about 2/3 of the XPs you're actually gaining, in my experience), created diversions, or ambushed them one by one so that you could kill them outright without them having the chance to reciprocate, etc. Now assuming you're not playing solo as I did, there are indeed plenty of ways in which you could kill a party of goblins, kobolds and the like on the surprise rounds. In other words, you survive because you don't put yourself in that situation where they roll against you with the chance to kill you outright at every encounter in the first place. It's a shift in game play from expecting every encounter to play nicely at equal CR, for sure, but it works in the context of this game.
Reading a bit of Sun Tzu works wonders for increasing skill as a player. No need to completely master the text, but being familiar with it is an almost incalculable boon.
Quote from: StormBringer;588738Reading a bit of Sun Tzu works wonders for increasing skill as a player. No need to completely master the text, but being familiar with it is an almost incalculable boon.
Yes. Seizing your enemy, knowing its weaknesses, choosing the battlefield, playing opponents against one another, etc. I can see how that can prove useful playing a game of AD&D First Ed, certainly. The Prince comes to mind, as well.
So does pretty much anything from the Appendix.
Quote from: StormBringer;588738Reading a bit of Sun Tzu works wonders for increasing skill as a player. No need to completely master the text, but being familiar with it is an almost incalculable boon.
That could do with a better translation away from inscrutable in most cases, military doctrine needs to be utterly clear and precise. Also I spotted a few baffling errors and omissions until it occurred to me that the last thing you want to do is publish the full documentation on your tactics for your enemies to pick up. Then again maybe the old fox threw them in there to create great doubt, his own take on a koan.
On topic, I've recently and inexplicably learned to my lasting regret at the waste of neurons what a "denner" is and I like this bucket of shite of a thread not at all. Just one man's opinion of course, take it as you will.
Quote from: Benoist;588741Yes. Seizing your enemy, knowing its weaknesses, choosing the battlefield, playing opponents against one another, etc. I can see how that can prove useful playing a game of AD&D First Ed, certainly. The Prince comes to mind, as well.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588742So does pretty much anything from the Appendix.
Both good suggestions. Maybe I will make a thread wherein we can discuss the stuff in those that helps improve player skill...
Quote from: TristramEvans;588712Mr. GC.
He's a basketweaver from a small Appalachian community where no other RPGs besides D&D 4th edition are played. Every night his mom-sister chews him out for playing characters that aren't optimized for combat, which makes him cry, but is also the only real attention anyone in his family pays to him so he came to therpgsite for solace.
Though close to thirty years of age he never recieved a real education and didn't graduate high school, so his English and math skills are somewhat below that of a 3rd grader. In fact, he's actually typing in a weird pishogue language and having babelfish translate it for him before posting, which is why his posts make little sense.
Lord Mistborn is his transexual twin "sister" (actually once a conjoined twin).
Enough, please.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588609Being successful, winning at D&D if you'd prefer is a factor of building effective characters but it's also a factor of playing them well, of both getting and using resources well. So if say, I made a character and gave it to a basket weaver they'd still die horribly because they couldn't use it right, and they'd probably do something like turn a fairly standard Wizard into a Fireball spammer or something noobish like that.
It's important to note that in your definition of playing the game right is impossible to find any reference to playing a role.
QuoteSo if you want to actually deal with traps successfully, you start pole dancing and you leave the worthless thief at home.
The description of the environment and your actions is not playing any part of the game. I get it.
QuoteIt's a stupid monster. You fly over it and move on. It's welcome to go eat the gimpy, non flight having Fighter and Rogue. See if I care.
You have avoided the question. I guess it is because youa re still pretending that all fights happen in featureless arenas.
QuoteOh look, someone who is a mental health expert on the Internet. And yet is getting played like a lute by a bored powergamer. What's that say about you?
The only part true in your statement is that you are a bored powergamer. What's that saying about you? That you are just a bored kid whith no gaming experience whatsoever other that a very limited niche?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588624If only the basket weavers would just go away... the fact of the matter is they spam their petty obstructionist bullshit everywhere, and are ultimately the reason why good tabletop gamers are near nonexistent (either because they left, or were ruined by bad players, or whatever).
If you or the likes of you are supposed to be a model of good gamers, we should be thankful that good gamers are near nonexistent.
Guys, you're arguing with someone who is 13 or 14. Let it go. If I read him correctly, he said he was 10 when he read the AD&D books "a few years ago".
I actually feel kind of bad now for allowing myself to get caught up in the drama. Dude's just a kid.
In the incredibly slim chance someone is swayed by the argument that 1e is a deathgrind, please note that 3.5 presents a significantly more dangerous milieu for the characters to adventure in. In virtually every instance, the 3.5 monster is more powerful (often much more powerful) than its 1e counterpart.
Quote from: mcbobbo;587783It brings up a side curiousity - how would you deal with deliberately non-optimal choices in your games? E.g. character comes from a long line of basket weavers?
First of all, who decides what is "optimal"?
A fighter PC who only uses a dagger and little or no armor might seem like a bad choice at first, but I had one such PC and he was very successful. First, he moved very fast. Second, his preferred weapon was always in hand and was quickly brought to bear. Third, being a dude with a dagger and no armor meant that in several fights, he was the first target of enemy missile weapons because someone with a dagger and no armor in a party of adventurers was assumed to be a magic-user.
Quote from: MGuy;587850The best way to deal with this is at the design stage.Seriously there should be no reason that a player's basket weaving heritage should handicap the character for the rest of the game. In 3rd I'd solve this issue by just giving the player points in basket weaving at no cost. It is literally so useless of a "thing" that it can be given away.
Now if the player is deliberately making a weak character with the intention of being weak I would probably just allow them to do so. I don't really care. I would however make no adjustments to the difficulty of the campaign and if the other players are ready and willing to pick up the slack then there's no need for me to "do" anything. They will either not have fun and regret their decision (at which time I will allow them to change characters) or a good time will be had by all.
Again, who says it's a weak character? I might have some sympathy for a player who created a character who is good at seamanship, only to join a party that sticks to land adventures. On the flip side, I have zero sympathy for someone who deliberately creates a character that is useless to the party as a whole. BUT the sort of player who pulls that kind of crap will usually try to gum up the game in other ways.
However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: A character might not have the kinds of skills and attributes one would expect for a certain type of campaign, but the character itself might still prove to be a useful member of the group. If a character in a D&D type of game is willing to be a team player then the fact that he or she only has skill in basket-weaving is no great loss.
In many adventure movies and novels there are often characters who don't have any skills that are useful in the adventure, but they can still be valuable members of the group. Maybe they know something important (or they
are something important) to a thread in the campaign. For example, the Erika Eleniak character in
Under Siege has apparently used all her skill points in Cute Blonde With Big Tits Skill, yet she helps save USS Missouri's crew from the hijackers in spite of not having any combat training.
There is also the fact that characters can often learn new things or learn how to better apply the ones they already have.
Of course a character that is not useful to the group in any way will usually be removed because if the rigors of adventuring don't kill off the character then the other PCs will, or at least expel the offender.
Admittedly skipped most of this thread, so I'll miss the point somewhat to ask...
...if there actually is a game with basket weaving as a selectable skill? If it's in something obvious like D&D 2/3/4, I wouldn't be aware of that.
Hackmaster has the broader Carpentry/Woodworking, which mentions making baskets.
Harnmaster doesn't specifically mention it (which shocked me), but it could clearly be taken as a specialty of an appropriate craft skill, presumably woodcraft. It does have a possible profession of Thatcher, which is probably as close as we'll get.
BRP is pretty much as HM; it could be a specialty of Art or Craft, depending on perspective.
*****
More to the (original) point...
Isn't it pretty much a question of Actor/Storyteller opposing Power Gamer/Butt-Kicker? If you're on the former edge of the spectrum, then it makes sense to have skill in "basket weaving" because it makes sense for the character to have some ability there; on the latter side, it's wasteful because it isn't immediately obvious how it will be as consistently useful as "attack with sword". Neither is right or wrong, just different ways that a game could be played. Some people like indie character studies and some people like Hollywood blockbusters. That's okay.
I think there is a bias due to RPGs' origins from wargaming, such that combat was a large element of early games (and probably most current games too). And since combat skill is pretty direct and quantifiable, it's not unreasonable that trying to optimize it happens. I can play that way, and often have to, as it's the only game in town, but I'd rather play with a group of basket weavers, in combat scarce scenarios.
Ideally, all the players and the GM should be generally on the same page. If so, the game will be interesting. A new player with an opposite viewpoint would probably see the game as boring (if it's storyteller heavy) or mindless (if it's combat heavy).
Quote from: TheHistorian;588817Admittedly skipped most of this thread, so I'll miss the point somewhat to ask...
...if there actually is a game with basket weaving as a selectable skill? If it's in something obvious like D&D 2/3/4, I wouldn't be aware of that.
Weaving is a nonweapon proficiency in AD&D 2e.
Quote from: Elfdart;588807Again, who says it's a weak character? I might have some sympathy for a player who created a character who is good at seamanship, only to join a party that sticks to land adventures. On the flip side, I have zero sympathy for someone who deliberately creates a character that is useless to the party as a whole. BUT the sort of player who pulls that kind of crap will usually try to gum up the game in other ways.
However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: A character might not have the kinds of skills and attributes one would expect for a certain type of campaign, but the character itself might still prove to be a useful member of the group. If a character in a D&D type of game is willing to be a team player then the fact that he or she only has skill in basket-weaving is no great loss.
In many adventure movies and novels there are often characters who don't have any skills that are useful in the adventure, but they can still be valuable members of the group. Maybe they know something important (or they are something important) to a thread in the campaign. For example, the Erika Eleniak character in Under Siege has apparently used all her skill points in Cute Blonde With Big Tits Skill, yet she helps save USS Missouri's crew from the hijackers in spite of not having any combat training.
There is also the fact that characters can often learn new things or learn how to better apply the ones they already have.
Of course a character that is not useful to the group in any way will usually be removed because if the rigors of adventuring don't kill off the character then the other PCs will, or at least expel the offender.
A character who decides to pick up Craft: Basket Weave is not necessarily "weak". As I understand it "basket weaver" is supposed to refer to someone who pays no heed to the rules of the game and plays a character not fit for the motif of the game. As in the person chooses to play a professional basket weaver in a game about big damn heroes.
Now, assuming the player doesn't focus on Craft:Basket Weaving may still end up being a valuable member of the team but they'd be slightly more effective if instead they put more points in a more valuable skill. In DnD you are essentially punished for not picking up every survival skill you can. For every point you spend on basket weaving you lose more valuable skills like spot/listen/sneak/Use Magic Device. That is not good. I whole heartedly believe the best approach is to have that skill available but not make it cost the same thing to get as more valuable skills.
Quote from: TheHistorian;588817Ideally, all the players and the GM should be generally on the same page. If so, the game will be interesting. A new player with an opposite viewpoint would probably see the game as boring (if it's storyteller heavy) or mindless (if it's combat heavy).
For me this is the only really valuable take-away from this thread. In my opinion "basket weaver" sounds like another group's synonym for "special snowflake," a character who is so focused and out of sync that it creates its own gravity well of expectations. But that's a table dynamic thing dealing with, as you stated, whether the GM and Players are on the same page.
You can play 2e D&D without WP/NWP or Secondary skills at all, and then run with the assumption that they have an even shake at trying anything (with an Attribute check to add a stochastic tiebreaker). Or you can play it with WP/NWP fully turned on and have a distinctly non-combat form of D&D (trust me, I've done it, and am still doing it with my Birthright campaign). But the core issue is the table's campaign premise and play group assumptions.
Some groups like to play in a glued-to-the-hip gestalt fashion (no PvP, no party splitting, everyone follows 1 quest at a time, no alignment 2 boxes away from heroic LG). Others are more flexible, but expect that the "group's goals" (whoever, or whichever clique, determines those goals isn't always explicitly stated... but should be) comes first. And other tables give primacy to individuality and groups are only alliances of convenience (and PvP, party splitting, etc. are essentially expected). And again others play with lots of solo or split groups and then run the occasional full group session. None of these styles are
objectively wrong.
That's why this argument has been so specious. Trying to apply a subjective table issue as an epithet to all players of other games (especially of games you yourself have no real experience of) is just a childish waste of time. The only way you can see this as a dogmatic matter is if you are too young and immature to understand it's solely a people issue and has to be resolved there. Which brings up why I cannot take this seriously because it's beating up upon the young who are already having a difficult time learning this basic interpersonal dynamics lesson. It only leaves me sad that we've taken it this seriously so far assuming we're dealing with adults (who should know better).
What is Basket Weaving?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588552I defined that on the first page. People would rather go off on tangents to defend the right of basket weavers to ruin every game they touch.
Wait ...what?
I'm a GM, and basket weavers have every right to enjoy the game as they see fit!
One of the things, that was really sorely lacking in original D&D was skills.Characters that could do things based on previous experience, that they got to choose right at the beginning of the game, to make their character, unique, special, capable of more than just being a monster killer or murder hobo. The path to heaven does not always involve laying waste to everything that is remotely disagreeable, you know?
These skills could add a lot of interesting turns and twists to a game, and give the player/character another opportunity to meaningfully participate.
Let's take our basket weaver for example...
Maybe he weaves an extra large basket that is waterproof, and uses that to cross a river instead of a boat.
The ancient Celts of Wales did exactly that. They called their basket boat a Coracle, it was named after a type of seashell.
Around 600 A.D. a group of Native Americans up on the Missouri River suddenly began to build and use Coracles too. They used them right up until the 1800's when they were about wiped out by all the settlers from the old world.
George Catlin, the great artist documented the Natives use of Coracles. He learned that they learned to use them from Welsh settlers that had arrived in North America almost a thousand years before Columbus arrived, but who were wiped out by a great council of Algonquin after they commited sins and broke taboos held sacred. A couple years back, I visited one of the former battle sites, You know, where the ancient Celts were wiped out, a few miles up the Ohio River from the Falls of the Ohio.
In 1781 while the Revolution was ongoing Thomas Jefferson, and some of the other founding members of our nation in a conspiracy, very carefully concealed this fact, so that the Kingdom of Britain could not lay claim to the lands of the New World, based on the fact that they had settled here prior to any of the colonists who had put together this document called the Declaration of Independence.
Wait, I'm getting distracted here... back to the Basket Weavers...
Maybe the Basket Weaver weaves a house... and Maybe the Orcs attack and burn the house. Is the Basket Weaver a murder-hobo because he goes after the orcs that gutted his home?
Maybe the basket weaver weaves extra baskets, when he isn't, you know... Killing stuff, and can get paid by selling the baskets in the towns he travels through, enabling him to get enough coin so he doesn't need to rob the other merchants, when he wants to upgrade his gear.
Maybe there's some players that like to play that way.
What have you got against them?
Quote from: TheHistorian;588817Admittedly skipped most of this thread, so I'll miss the point somewhat to ask...
...if there actually is a game with basket weaving as a selectable skill? If it's in something obvious like D&D 2/3/4, I wouldn't be aware of that.
You could have a Craft (Wood) (?): Basket Weaving specialty for Exalted. If you really wanted.
The weirdest aspect of the whole "basket-weaver" concept is that it was basically invented by 3e. 1e and 2e don't have anywhere near the level of optimization required to truly gimp yourself.
Quote from: CRKrueger;588872The weirdest aspect of the whole "basket-weaver" concept is that it was basically invented by 3e. 1e and 2e don't have anywhere near the level of optimization required to truly gimp yourself.
"I am inclined to think that the far greater part, if not all, of those difficulties which have hitherto amused philosophers, and blocked up the way to knowledge, are entirely owing to ourselves that we have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot see." --George Berkeley
This thread shows me that Denners are the Randroids of TRPGs.
Quote from: Benoist;588736Are you saying you need 20 sessions to get attached to a character?
If not, how many sessions does it take for you to be able to role play a character, in your mind?
It's not about how long it takes to get attached to a character. It's about if you're constantly changing characters, you're not going to get attached because you know they're just going to die horribly.
QuoteWell first, there's no THAC0 other than a monster reference in the DMG, in AD&D 1e. Another thing that spells clearly out loud that you don't know much about 1e, to me and the others who happen to know this game on this thread.
So you mean to tell me you do not roll a D20 and see if enemies hit? Because if you do, it doesn't matter if you call that "to hit, THAC0, or get in the kitchen and make me a sammich", what matters is that if they roll high you die. Now you're actually being fairly reasonable here, so don't start that bullshit again.
QuoteNow, if you do everything right, that's not what happens. If you do everything right, you have sneaked past the monsters, waited until they left camp to take their treasure when they weren't looking (GP accounts for about 2/3 of the XPs you're actually gaining, in my experience), created diversions, or ambushed them one by one so that you could kill them outright without them having the chance to reciprocate, etc. Now assuming you're not playing solo as I did, there are indeed plenty of ways in which you could kill a party of goblins, kobolds and the like on the surprise rounds. In other words, you survive because you don't put yourself in that situation where they roll against you with the chance to kill you outright at every encounter in the first place. It's a shift in game play from expecting every encounter to play nicely at equal CR, for sure, but it works in the context of this game.
Translation: You seriously expect taking thing's stuff without killing them to be easier than killing them and then taking their stuff, and seriously expect all enemies to be incredibly stupid even if they aren't. Yeah, I can see why you claim it's an incredibly non lethal experience. You're fighting MMO mobs and not D&D monsters.
QuoteIs it conceivable for you that some players might know the game better than the players represented in the example you are speaking of, and manage the circumstances differently, in your mind?
None of that would prevent one enemy rolls high = one PC dies, and there are about as many enemies as PCs.
QuoteAhhh I see. I misread that part. Sorry.
So you were around 10 when you played AD&D First Ed. Now what I understand is that you never reached level 10ish playing the game, that you played with 3 different DMs at the time (were they about your age?), and that you can't answer the last question because you never reached 10ish level.
OK. That's helping. So, how long and at which frequency did you play AD&D 1e? Were your DMs around your age, too? What is the max level you reached in the game, ever?
One was, one was 16, one was... I have no idea, but he's the dad that originally owned the books. All turned out about the same. Death, death, death... I think I got to 5 or 6 once, before dying and being screwed hard by the must make new at level 1 rule. If I recall correctly I died to my own spell because this is fuck you edition and they didn't tell you Fireball is volume based because they want you to learn that the hard way. A few years and in hindsight at least I accomplished nothing.
QuoteWell that's not an answer. Here's how this pans out:
Q: What RPGs have you played or ran?
A: No.
You don't answer "no" to a question that begins with "what", you see what I mean? I think it's relevant to me to understand where you are coming from, which is a different matter entirely than what you thought I was asking that for.
Now, which other RPGs have you played or run?
When you say what other RPGs have you run and the other person says they think the other RPGs are universally terrible, worthless, and not worth the time and money to learn even though they did not actually say those things were not played much or at all, that's exactly what the case is. Don't start this autistic pedantic bullshit where you act like you can't understand anything that isn't explicitly spelled out.
QuoteThat's where I actually disagree. I think that, especially where old modules are concerned, just reading them to make the kind of judgment you are making is misguided (to say the least). You need to play them to be able to see how different scenarios might play, and given you've just told me that you played AD&D when you were about 10-ish, I think your perception and extrapolation based on what's written on the page might be a tad off.
Except for the part where I read WPM a few days ago. The only way many rooms full of horrible death becomes not many rooms of horrible death is if the DM starts nerfing everything, ignoring the rules, etc.
QuoteAt 10, I'll believe you looked at the charts in the books and read some spells' descriptions. Bonus question: you told me you were not a DM of 1e. Did you read the DMG? If so, to which extent? Did you read it cover to cover?
I'm thinking no. I'd like to say I tried once and the DM got mad because (in hindsight) I'd have seen the super secret fuck you versions of spells and such but I don't remember clearly enough to say.
QuoteActually not. You generally don't level up in one or two sessions to level 2. The advancement rate in AD&D 1e is much slower than what you know of 3rd ed.
Yes I believe I mentioned that... when I was talking about how easy it is to be 1-2 hit KOed.
QuoteThese people would be level 0 or level 1, in AD&D 1e parlance. Which means, yes, if you strike them with a broad sword there's a huge chance for them to die. If they fall in a pit trap they didn't see coming, there's a possibility they'll end up knocking their head and passing out, needing to recuperate at a hospital for the next few days. If they jump head on into flames and take on fire, flames are not "EL appropriate", and they die.
And they are working jobs that while dangerous, are incredibly safe compared to any D&D character. So you consider, policemen and firefighters are rarely hurt in the line of duty if they are well trained. Adventurers are likely to be even if they are.
So while you rarely hear about a firefighter consumed by blazes, or an officer down in the line of duty, what you do hear about in the D&D world is the equivalent of a single police station losing > its maximum concurrent staff per year every year... and that's if they're doing it right (and playing a game in which this is even possible). So if you have 12 "officers", that's more than 12 deaths per year.
QuoteAssuming you stay long enough without being so much of a shithead you are banned, of course.
Remember the fate of your buddy Lord Mistborn.
Your choice.
Right... I don't think you're actually interested in a discussion after all.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588760Guys, you're arguing with someone who is 13 or 14. Let it go. If I read him correctly, he said he was 10 when he read the AD&D books "a few years ago".
I actually feel kind of bad now for allowing myself to get caught up in the drama. Dude's just a kid.
As usual, you are not reading it correctly, or else you'd know I said I was 10 when first exposed, then read them again a few years ago and if you actually go and reverse engineer my age based on that you get a number of 25 or greater.
I'd ignore you entirely, but experience has shown your dumbfuckery actually will mislead people here.
Quote from: Old One Eye;588799In the incredibly slim chance someone is swayed by the argument that 1e is a deathgrind, please note that 3.5 presents a significantly more dangerous milieu for the characters to adventure in. In virtually every instance, the 3.5 monster is more powerful (often much more powerful) than its 1e counterpart.
Not entirely accurate. If you look at it in the sense of %life lost from an attack... that's sometimes true and sometimes isn't. If you look at it in the sense of %life lost in a round it's most definitely not true. In older editions you get bigger encounters. If you'd fight 1 Frost Giant in 3.5, you'd fight around 2-4 at once in an older edition. They might individually do less damage but you have less HP, and there are more of them... that's a greater %damage taken ratio. By far.
If you look at the spells, many individual spells are actually
weaker in 3.5. Yes really. Illusions and the resulting I disbelieve everything meme? That shit was fucking justified. 3.5 illusions, while powerful are much more limited. Many save or loses were just loses in earlier editions, and even stuff like Fireball, which is the same as the enemy taking no action in 3.5 is devastating in older editions.
Finally, and most importantly... you can do something about it. 1st edition offers nothing but randomness and fuck yous, so expect to be fucked early and often. In 3.5 you can actually build and play well and have that make a difference. Such that even if you did fight 2-4 Frost Giants where you'd normally only fight 1 you'd still easily win it and probably even score a flawless victory. 2-4 Frost Giants in an early edition? Either you Fireball in the top of the first or everyone dies.
Quote from: GameDaddy;588851I'm a GM, and basket weavers have every right to enjoy the game as they see fit!
Then you are a terrible person encouraging, and promoting blights upon gaming. Please die in a fire immediately for the good of humanity.
QuoteWhat have you got against them?
They ruin games.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892They ruin games.
Perhaps so. I'm sure that Basketweavers can ruin games for some groups, just as Charop Min-maxers, Rules Lawyers, Munchkins and/or Twinks can ruin games for some groups. Its sounds like your games would be ruined by Basketweavers while my games would not. However, my games would easily be ruined by Charop Min-maxers and Rules Lawyers where from what you have said on this board. I would guess yours would not.
Different strokes for different folks, after all.
Quote from: RandallS;588893Perhaps so. I'm sure that Basketweavers can ruin games for some groups, just as Charop Min-maxers, Rules Lawyers, Munchkins and/or Twinks can ruin games for some groups. Its sounds like your games would be ruined by Basketweavers while my games would not. However, my games would easily be ruined by Charop Min-maxers and Rules Lawyers where from what you have said on this board. I would guess yours would not.
Different strokes for different folks, after all.
Basket weavers ruin all games.
Cheaters ruin all games.
Powergamers don't even necessarily ruin basket weaver games (hey, someone's gotta carry these losers through the dungeon).
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892In older editions you get bigger encounters. If you'd fight 1 Frost Giant in 3.5, you'd fight around 2-4 at once in an older edition.
Not true in the slightest. In every edition, whatever monsters can be encountered are those that are placed by the DM. I've run Hommlet in 1e through 4e, it is not noticeably more deadly in any edition.
It sounds like you are willing to change the actual world in relation to the edition. I don't do that.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588896Basket weavers ruin all games.).
I am basically done contributing to the thread, but this statement deserves a respnse.
The problem with your statement is it just takes single exception to invalidate it. I just ran a game with a basket weaver in it, and he did not ruin the game. I am sure others here can think of games that basket weavers failed to ruin in their own experience.
Quote from: Old One Eye;588898Not true in the slightest. In every edition, whatever monsters can be encountered are those that are placed by the DM. I've run Hommlet in 1e through 4e, it is not noticeably more deadly in any edition.
It sounds like you are willing to change the actual world in relation to the edition. I don't do that.
Except where if you look at the actual rules of the actual game, you get things like "number appearing". And these are significantly larger, especially with no CR rules. Alternately, you could look at actual adventures.
In fact let's do that.
So flipping past the first few that are actually rather easy no matter how you spin it... you soon get to the part where you're getting hit with four giants at once. Actually not that bad. If this were 3.5 this would be a level +2 encounter and any good party eats those for breakfast, so even in older editions where you can't be a good party still not so bad.
Then one area has over 30 of them and some of them are individually what would be 3-5 levels higher than the group if this were 3.5. Um yeah, ECL Fuck Off and die encounter much?
And it's not like if you seriously fuck up, all these giants fucking jump you, it's more like they're chilling, then someone says hey wait a minute, those guys aren't supposed to be here and then the party just asplodes.
Quote from: MGuy;588832A character who decides to pick up Craft: Basket Weave is not necessarily "weak". As I understand it "basket weaver" is supposed to refer to someone who pays no heed to the rules of the game and plays a character not fit for the motif of the game. As in the person chooses to play a professional basket weaver in a game about big damn heroes.
Now, assuming the player doesn't focus on Craft:Basket Weaving may still end up being a valuable member of the team but they'd be slightly more effective if instead they put more points in a more valuable skill. In DnD you are essentially punished for not picking up every survival skill you can. For every point you spend on basket weaving you lose more valuable skills like spot/listen/sneak/Use Magic Device. That is not good. I whole heartedly believe the best approach is to have that skill available but not make it cost the same thing to get as more valuable skills.
As a GM, I don't really care how a player builds a character. If a fighter's highest score is assigned to charisma or wisdom rather that strength, who's to say it's a bad choice? That kind of thing needs to be left to the player to decide. Ditto for skills.
In a MERC2000 game I had a PC max out his skill in the Tamil language just as a goof (the campaign was in the Andes, where the language is uh, not exactly common). The GM rolled his eyes and the other players did, too -but it was my character so tough titty. The GM had a computer program that randomly created NPCs and as luck would have it (and to the surprise of the GM "You've gotta be fucking kidding me!"), one of the important NPCs spoke Tamil. So those points weren't wasted after all.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588901Except where if you look at the actual rules of the actual game, you get things like "number appearing". And these are significantly larger, especially with no CR rules. Alternately, you could look at actual adventures.
Seriously, the law of averages cannot be this broken. You cannot possibly be so incredibly wrong
all the time. St Darwin would have been forced to remove you from the gene pool a long time ago if that had been the case.
'Number appearing' means exactly jack and squat. I wear the Viking Hat, I decide how many monsters there are. It's my campaign, it's my world, it's my encounter design. I am sure you are howling in rage at the moment, but my players don't coast through by dint of DM Mercy like you are accustomed to. CR was clearly included to keep shitty players from having to face an actual challenge.
Every time you fall back on the rules demanding things go in your favour, you are begging the DM not to hurt your precious snowflake character. Characters who take various non-combat skills at least have some strategies available while you are sobbing in the corner because you couldn't defeat every situation with swording and DM favour.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892It's not about how long it takes to get attached to a character. It's about if you're constantly changing characters, you're not going to get attached because you know they're just going to die horribly.
To have a conversation with people, you need to acknowledge what they are actually telling you and not behave like a brick wall. That's communication 101. When you make comments like this, you are failing at communication 101, because you are failing to recognize I already have addressed this with you multiple times, and discarded everything I said about it. Unlike me, who have acknowledged for instance, your own experience playing the game around 10 with 3 DMs and acted on the basis that some of the things you said, the less outlandish or obviously completely wrong ones, that is, might actually be true.
You are not reciprocating. From there, we'd just be running in circles. If you want to have a conversation with people, you need to avoid saying stuff like this on other forums... (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53652&start=175)
Quote from: Mr. GCBlack people are not objectively wrong. Grognards are. Black is not a choice. Grog is.
I hope you can honestly see the difference between discriminating against others based on a choice they made and discriminating against others based on circumstances beyond their control.
Because if you just honestly compared racism to anti grog there is no hope for you.
... because right there you are typing very clearly that you discriminate against people you are trying to pretend to have a "conversation" with here, and clearly spell out you think they are wrong-forever-period-the-end.
Pro tip: Conversation. Discussion. These words do not mean what you think they mean.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892So you mean to tell me you do not roll a D20 and see if enemies hit? Because if you do, it doesn't matter if you call that "to hit, THAC0, or get in the kitchen and make me a sammich", what matters is that if they roll high you die. Now you're actually being fairly reasonable here, so don't start that bullshit again.
Nice try, but that isn't actually what I said. What I said is that your hesitation, like ALL the times you spoke about 1e and got it completely and utterly wrong, basically spell out that you were lying when you said you were reading the books right now. If you were, you would know what to call it, and that's that.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892Translation: You seriously expect taking thing's stuff without killing them to be easier than killing them and then taking their stuff, and seriously expect all enemies to be incredibly stupid even if they aren't. Yeah, I can see why you claim it's an incredibly non lethal experience. You're fighting MMO mobs and not D&D monsters.
Who said that was going to be easy, or that the enemies would be stupid? You are projecting here. Just another way to not engage in an actual discussion.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892None of that would prevent one enemy rolls high = one PC dies, and there are about as many enemies as PCs.
Well yes it would, if the enemies didn't have a chance to roll in the first place. And that's what I said just one paragraph above. Well done. That's a nice string of not-having-a-conversation you got there.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892One was, one was 16, one was... I have no idea, but he's the dad that originally owned the books. All turned out about the same. Death, death, death... I think I got to 5 or 6 once, before dying and being screwed hard by the must make new at level 1 rule. If I recall correctly I died to my own spell because this is fuck you edition and they didn't tell you Fireball is volume based because they want you to learn that the hard way. A few years and in hindsight at least I accomplished nothing.
Ever considered you suck at strategy and tactics? Because all things being equal, if you keep having the same experience playing the game with different people and you die die die, given that other people here, including me, told you that if the game is dangerous and challenging for low levels, it isn't insurmontable, that means that, by Occam's Razor, you are the most constant factor in the problem you are having with this game others are not experiencing anywhere to the degree you have. Ergo, you must suck at the game.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892When you say what other RPGs have you run and the other person says they think the other RPGs are universally terrible, worthless, and not worth the time and money to learn even though they did not actually say those things were not played much or at all, that's exactly what the case is. Don't start this autistic pedantic bullshit where you act like you can't understand anything that isn't explicitly spelled out.
Okay. So that means you have never played or run another RPG ever. See? That wasn't that complicated. Now that tells me something about you and allows me to understand better where you are coming from. Thank you.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892Except for the part where I read WPM a few days ago. The only way many rooms full of horrible death becomes not many rooms of horrible death is if the DM starts nerfing everything, ignoring the rules, etc.
OK. That's where it's kind of obvious you take me for a moron and I didn't speak about "just reading" the module in the very paragraph you quoted to post this answer. I mean, really?
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892I'm thinking no. I'd like to say I tried once and the DM got mad because (in hindsight) I'd have seen the super secret fuck you versions of spells and such but I don't remember clearly enough to say.
Right. So you have not read the DMG. Which is the book where all the rules you have been talking about and which you got systematically completely and utterly wrong have all been coming from. We also know that you were lying when you said that you were reading the DMG right now. That's fairly obvious by the way you got everything utterly and completely wrong when talking about 1e. I think we're getting somewhere here.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892Yes I believe I mentioned that... when I was talking about how easy it is to be 1-2 hit KOed.
Apparently you misremembered between that post and the one where you supposed people were leveling up in two sessions in the game. So now I'm wondering if you actually read the PH at all, either. I'm going to guess, since you told me to use my brain and actually read between the lines, and say that's likely to be a big fat "NO" as well.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892And they are working jobs that while dangerous, are incredibly safe compared to any D&D character. So you consider, policemen and firefighters are rarely hurt in the line of duty if they are well trained. Adventurers are likely to be even if they are.
So while you rarely hear about a firefighter consumed by blazes, or an officer down in the line of duty, what you do hear about in the D&D world is the equivalent of a single police station losing > its maximum concurrent staff per year every year... and that's if they're doing it right (and playing a game in which this is even possible). So if you have 12 "officers", that's more than 12 deaths per year.
You rarely hear about firefighters and cops going down into the supernatural underworld of dungeons either. If these people lived in the world of D&D and went down the dungeon, they wouldn't last long either.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588892Right... I don't think you're actually interested in a discussion after all.
See the beginning of this post. You basically fail at communication 101. You don't seem to know what a "discussion" is. And judging by the logic you exposed on the Gaming Den talking about how "it's okay to be discriminatory against Grogs because they are wrong", this is obvious you are not interested in actually having an exchange man to man, like an adult, and own your bullshit to move on and build something constructively.
There. At least this exchange has been useful for me. I know for certain, without the shadow of a doubt now, that (1) you know fuck all about D&D, and RPGs in general, (2) you have been lying to us about it, (3) you are not here to have an actual discussion, and (4) you will not man up and own your own mistakes.
I just gave you a fair chance to have an actual conversation. You decided against it, and you blew it.
There's no conversation possible. Good day.
Quote from: Benoist;588928To have a conversation with people, you need to acknowledge what they are actually telling you and not behave like a brick wall. That's communication 101. When you make comments like this, you are failing at communication 101, because you are failing to recognize I already have addressed this with you multiple times, and discarded everything I said about it. Unlike me, who have acknowledged for instance, your own experience playing the game around 10 with 3 DMs and acted on the basis that some of the things you said, the less outlandish or obviously completely wrong ones, that is, might actually be true.
You're talking about how long it takes to get attached to a character which is not what I am talking about at all. So NOU.
QuoteYou are not reciprocating. From there, we'd just be running in circles. If you want to have a conversation with people, you need to avoid saying stuff like this on other forums... (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53652&start=175)
What I said there is "it's fine not to like someone based on the choices they make". You could say this is painfully obvious, you could try to argue with it, but since literally everyone everywhere thinks that [Certain type of activity and those that partake in it] is distasteful including those here, you don't get to single me out for doing the same.
I mean the entire fucking premise of this board is complaining about "the Swine", so if this sort of thing actually bothers you (and you aren't just being oppositional for the sake of it) you should go have a word with your boss.
Quote... because right there you are typing very clearly that you discriminate against people you are trying to pretend to have a "conversation" with here, and clearly spell out you think they are wrong-forever-period-the-end.
Pro tip: Conversation. Discussion. These words do not mean what you think they mean.
Yes, I don't like idiots. I've said I don't like idiots directly and openly. Numerous times, right here. Why is this a revelation? Now I believe that you are just pretending to have a conversation with me, but I was really trying with you until you revealed that.
QuoteNice try, but that isn't actually what I said. What I said is that your hesitation, like ALL the times you spoke about 1e and got it completely and utterly wrong, basically spell out that you were lying when you said you were reading the books right now. If you were, you would know what to call it, and that's that.
I said whatever the attack accuracy stat is being called, if they hit you hit the floor. You chose to bitch about what the attack accuracy stat is being called and will continue to do so (even though I specifically chose that wording to preempt the sperging), just like when I said "to hit" I was told that was both wrong and right then I said THAC0 and it's the same... if I said the sky is blue you'd fucking argue with me on that. It's just oppositional bullshit, and not raising any actual points.
QuoteWho said that was going to be easy, or that the enemies would be stupid? You are projecting here. Just another way to not engage in an actual discussion.
You're operating under the assumption this actually works, so you did.
QuoteWell yes it would, if the enemies didn't have a chance to roll in the first place. And that's what I said just one paragraph above. Well done. That's a nice string of not-having-a-conversation you got there.
So the party should always act before all enemies and always kill all enemies before they can act, every time?
Weren't you guys just bitching about how I fail at probability? Because anyone can tell that's about statistically impossible.
QuoteEver considered you suck at strategy and tactics? Because all things being equal, if you keep having the same experience playing the game with different people and you die die die, given that other people here, including me, told you that if the game is dangerous and challenging for low levels, it isn't insurmontable, that means that, by Occam's Razor, you are the most constant factor in the problem you are having with this game others are not experiencing anywhere to the degree you have. Ergo, you must suck at the game.
If it were "I'm dying because I'm a fucking kid", I'd have taken that into consideration. When this is also happening to adults and everyone, including the DM regards it as a normal thing, and these are entirely different groups with very little member overlap...
When I go back later and actually look at it now that I have a better understanding of these things and I wonder "Well wait, how the fuck do you survive this?" and I look around and other groups are also a constant death fest...
Not only am I going to conclude that old editions are in fact invariably lethal, I'm going to conclude those here claiming otherwise are simply being oppositional since if they had actual points, they wouldn't be easily maneuvered into contradicting themselves simply by taking whatever stance currently opposes mine despite not actually believing that. Instead they'd just believe what they believe and stick to their beliefs.
QuoteOkay. So that means you have never played or run another RPG ever. See? That wasn't that complicated. Now that tells me something about you and allows me to understand better where you are coming from. Thank you.
Translation: Even though this topic has absolutely nothing to do with non D&D games I'm going to dismiss you out of hand because you don't play non D&D games.
Ok, whatever.
QuoteOK. That's where it's kind of obvious you take me for a moron and I didn't speak about "just reading" the module in the very paragraph you quoted to post this answer. I mean, really?
You said some crap about reading it a long time ago.
QuoteYou rarely hear about firefighters and cops going down into the supernatural underworld of dungeons either. If these people lived in the world of D&D and went down the dungeon, they wouldn't last long either.
Thus adventurers are held to a higher standard. Glad we're in agreement!
QuoteSee the beginning of this post. You basically fail at communication 101. You don't seem to know what a "discussion" is. And judging by the logic you exposed on the Gaming Den talking about how "it's okay to be discriminatory against Grogs because they are wrong", this is obvious you are not interested in actually having an exchange man to man, like an adult, and own your bullshit to move on and build something constructively.
Get real. As if you like me. Yet, you're bitching that... I don't like basket weavers and you consider yourself one? Something that again, I've been very open about? Whatever man. Whatever.
Quote from: Mr. GC;588937It's just oppositional bullshit, and not raising any actual points.
It's a 'no smoking' sign on your cigarette break.
Quote from: StormBringer;588939It's a 'no smoking' sign on your cigarette break.
I have to be crystal clear about my previous post before someone follows on this: my post and ultimate dismissal of GC was not an invitation to trash him and/or this thread. You've read the Pundit as I did. Be very careful not to just post "fuck you" one-liners when answering him. Try to add something to the conversation, address the OP, etc. Otherwise that's not going to fly.
Quote from: Elfdart;588910As a GM, I don't really care how a player builds a character. If a fighter's highest score is assigned to charisma or wisdom rather that strength, who's to say it's a bad choice? That kind of thing needs to be left to the player to decide. Ditto for skills.
In a MERC2000 game I had a PC max out his skill in the Tamil language just as a goof (the campaign was in the Andes, where the language is uh, not exactly common). The GM rolled his eyes and the other players did, too -but it was my character so tough titty. The GM had a computer program that randomly created NPCs and as luck would have it (and to the surprise of the GM "You've gotta be fucking kidding me!"), one of the important NPCs spoke Tamil. So those points weren't wasted after all.
I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.
Your example has several issues all its own. For one, randomness happened to be in your favor and that's not a reliable thing. For two the result was of minimal importance. Had no one spoke Tamil I'm fairly sure the GM would have had the important NPC ALSO speak the local tongue (as that would make sense). For three I'm not sure what the game you're even playing is so there's a very good chance that other skills or abilities that have the same cost were similarly narrow in utility or may have been unnecessary considering your group.
Psst! It's role-playing. Not roll-playing
Quote from: MGuy;588941I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.
Your example has several issues all its own. For one, randomness happened to be in your favor and that's not a reliable thing. For two the result was of minimal importance. Had no one spoke Tamil I'm fairly sure the GM would have had the important NPC ALSO speak the local tongue (as that would make sense). For three I'm not sure what the game you're even playing is so there's a very good chance that other skills or abilities that have the same cost were similarly narrow in utility or may have been unnecessary considering your group.
Yeah really. All you have to do to assess a warrior (which might or might not be a Fighter, and could easily be a monster the party is fighting and not a part of the party at all) is look at HP, attack/damage, and other basic stats. You compare one numbers line to the other and the bigger one wins. That's the whole game.
I could demonstrate this easily, but OHT really doesn't like demonstrations of actual play. This makes it essentially impossible to meaningfully discuss the game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588943Psst! It's role-playing. Not roll-playing
Dude, SERIOUSLY? When I just posted about being careful with one-liners? You really want to go there?
Quote from: RPGPundit;588681As for the rest of you motherfuckers (and by rest of you I mean EVERYONE, not "the denners"), on these subjects related to charop and this "basketweaving" bullshit and everything else to do with the "denner invasion", CONSIDER EVERYONE ON THE SITE WARNED.
I WILL ban you if you derail a thread.
I WILL ban you if you start posting off-topic to turn a thread that wasn't originally about a "denner" subject into a "denner" thread.
And I'll ban you even if you don't do those things but otherwise display behaviour that leads me to conclude your only reason to be here is to try to disrupt this forum.
Understood?
RPGPundit
I mean. Seriously. Cut that shit out. If you can't post anything constructive to the conversation other than a one-line flamebait, DON'T.
Is that clear now?
Quote from: CRKrueger;588872The weirdest aspect of the whole "basket-weaver" concept is that it was basically invented by 3e. 1e and 2e don't have anywhere near the level of optimization required to truly gimp yourself.
Well if you have less choices to make about what your character can do then naturally you have less control over the resulting effectiveness of your character.
Quote from: MGuy;588941I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.
Doesn't it depend completely upon the type of campaign being run?
You can make the biggest most beefiest Fighter evar and it wont mean dippity-do in a game that doesn't have much Combat.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;588899I am basically done contributing to the thread, but this statement deserves a respnse.
The problem with your statement is it just takes single exception to invalidate it. I just ran a game with a basket weaver in it, and he did not ruin the game. I am sure others here can think of games that basket weavers failed to ruin in their own experience.
In the Majestic Wilderlands GURPS campaign I am running I have a player who is a 75 point puppet master who knows a dozen spells at very low levels (13 to 15 skill). Mostly spells that generate special effects for his show.
Last session he managed to kill six ghouls in a single shot by using his explosive fireball. Good thing too as these Ghouls are capable of inflicting Voices of the Dead on characters. If the characters fails their save they hear an auditory illusion of the voices of beloved deceased relatives compelling them to attack the party as enemies. One of the surviving ghoul managed to nail one of the party which caused much havoc.
Being skilled at puppetry sounds pretty much in the same class as basket weaving to me and it seems to work out for the player.
The trick for my campaigns is that I run the game in an immersive style. The player isn't required to have a detailed background or personality but he does have to interact with the setting as if he was really there. This often leads the player into finding things that interests them that at first glance would be pretty mundane.
The same puppet master character had a chance encounter with a drunken townsperson with ultimately lead to one session where most of his time was spent him interaction with the townsperson and his family. Which in a later session proved inadvertently useful when the group were dealing with some spies and needed some manpower to resolve a situation.
RPGs deal with a setting, you can handle interaction with a setting abstractly or in detail. When you do it in detail, you can use what I call the Soap Opera effect to generate interesting adventure. The Soap Opera effect is the fact that most people are interested about other people. And if they get interested in some NPCs regardless of how mundane their situation is, the potential for adventure exists. I.e. some conflict that needs to be resolve through the actions of the PC.
Quote from: Benoist;588946Dude, SERIOUSLY? When I just posted about being careful with one-liners? You really want to go there?
I mean. Seriously. Cut that shit out. If you can't post anything constructive to the conversation other than a one-line flamebait, DON'T.
Is that clear now?
Wait, what? I think maybe you misinterpreted what I was going at. That was in reference this MGuy saying:
I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.Meaning, creating a fighter based on a role rather than on a math bonus isn't necessarily folly because in D&D, the game is mostly about the player taking on the role of the character, rather than putting all of the focus on the die rolls themselves. I.e., you can have a great time playing the game without a single STR or CON bonus, if that's how you like to play.
Quote from: Benoist;588940I have to be crystal clear about my previous post before someone follows on this: my post and ultimate dismissal of GC was not an invitation to trash him and/or this thread. You've read the Pundit as I did. Be very careful not to just post "fuck you" one-liners when answering him. Try to add something to the conversation, address the OP, etc. Otherwise that's not going to fly.
That isn't why I responded in that manner, but I hear what you are saying.
Quote from: MGuy;588947Well if you have less choices to make about what your character can do then naturally you have less control over the resulting effectiveness of your character.
'What your character can do' is far more than what is on your character sheet.
Quote from: StormBringer;588958'What your character can do' is far more than what is on your character sheet.
Yup, and it because of the roleplaying elements common to all RPGs. The ability to act as if your character exists within the setting coupled with the feature of being able to attempt anything that is possible. The mechanics exist to aid the referee to RESOLVE what the players (and NPCs) attempt to do. They don't define what the characters CAN do. That is foundin the premise of the game's setting or genre
Quote from: Sacrosanct;588956Wait, what? I think maybe you misinterpreted what I was going at. That was in reference this MGuy saying:
I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.
Meaning, creating a fighter based on a role rather than on a math bonus isn't necessarily folly because in D&D, the game is mostly about the player taking on the role of the character, rather than putting all of the focus on the die rolls themselves. I.e., you can have a great time playing the game without a single STR or CON bonus, if that's how you like to play.
Your hands were somehow paralyzed when you typed your previous post and you just had the time to post "role playing not roll playing" before they gave up on you? Didn't think so. Then just fucking say what you just posted here right off the bat. Type it all the way. Don't use fucking one-liners that could be misinterpreted in twenty million ways, including the flamebait fuck-you disruptive way, and take this thread back into poo-flinging territory. Don't be lazy. Actually type posts that are meaningful to the OP and conversation on this thread. Okay?
Quote from: StormBringer;588957That isn't why I responded in that manner, but I hear what you are saying.
Yeah. I'm not judging the post. It's just that it could be misinterpreted to restart the whole poo-flinging bullshit, and Pundit clearly stated that was enough, as far as this conversation was concerned.
Quote from: estar;588966Yup, and it because of the roleplaying elements common to all RPGs. The ability to act as if your character exists within the setting coupled with the feature of being able to attempt anything that is possible. The mechanics exist to aid the referee to RESOLVE what the players (and NPCs) attempt to do. They don't define what the characters CAN do. That is foundin the premise of the game's setting or genre
This needs to be printed on the overleaf of every RPG by federal mandate.
Quote from: estar;588966Yup, and it because of the roleplaying elements common to all RPGs. The ability to act as if your character exists within the setting coupled with the feature of being able to attempt anything that is possible. The mechanics exist to aid the referee to RESOLVE what the players (and NPCs) attempt to do. They don't define what the characters CAN do. That is foundin the premise of the game's setting or genre
I think there is also something else,
The mechanics exist to infer to the player what the PC can attempt to do.That is where you get a lot of sticking points.
Quote from: estar;588966Yup, and it because of the roleplaying elements common to all RPGs. The ability to act as if your character exists within the setting coupled with the feature of being able to attempt anything that is possible. The mechanics exist to aid the referee to RESOLVE what the players (and NPCs) attempt to do. They don't define what the characters CAN do. That is foundin the premise of the game's setting or genre
Pfffffffff. I've already gone over this but here we go again.
1)
Fighter. Just by the name you know that a fighter is for fighting. If it wasn't you would have a different name that would suggest a wider range of uses but since the fighter's claim to fame is how well it fights then reasonably when comparing two different fighters (all other things being equal including outside factors like "player skill") then you go through the numbers to see how well it fights.
2) Anything that is not on your character sheet is not something intrinsic to the fighter. Seriously there is no difference between being a "fighter" and being a "thief" other than what you put on your character sheet. It is the numbers and abilities that are present on your character sheet and in the rule book that keeps your characters different. Putting the relevant numbers on your character sheet is the only thing that makes you put "fighter" on your character sheet instead of "Wizard" when you want to be a swordsman.
3)When making a comparison between "characters" mentioning what the "player" can or can't do is merely a distraction. If you give the same guy the same character but one character's stats is better than the other character's stats then obviously the guy will do better with the character with better stats. That is so obvious that I'm surprised I'd have to mention it.
4) Now your response to 3 may be that you play in such a way that renders differences between stats for characters insignificant. If you're doing that then there really is no reason to even make stats for a character because you are just going to make them meaningless anyway and if you're going to do that I don't really understand why you would bother using stats at all.
Double post.
Quote from: Sommerjon;588951Doesn't it depend completely upon the type of campaign being run?
You can make the biggest most beefiest Fighter evar and it wont mean dippity-do in a game that doesn't have much Combat.
Yes that "can" happen but if you're playing a game where the fighter's ability to fight is rendered moot what exactly does the fighter offer the group that other characters with less fight relevant abilities not offer? The fighter, in concept and mechanics wise, already has limited uses as it is. If this is aggregated by the fact that someone's entire campaign renders the existence of a sword guy moot why even have the sword guy present in the first place?
Quote from: MGuy;5889721) Fighter. Just by the name you know that a fighter is for fighting. If it wasn't you would have a different name that would suggest a wider range of uses but since the fighter's claim to fame is how well it fights then reasonably when comparing two different fighters (all other things being equal including outside factors like "player skill") then you go through the numbers to see how well it fights.
2) Anything that is not on your character sheet is not something intrinsic to the fighter. Seriously there is no difference between being a "fighter" and being a "thief" other than what you put on your character sheet.
The mechanics of character sheet defines what the character is better (or worse at. Depending on the genre or setting it may also define some of what the character can do. For example supernatural powers like Magic or the fact they have crippled legs and can't walk.
Ideally RPG Character Sheets describe the character as if they were a real person existing within that genre or setting. There is only so much detail that can be written down and still have a playable game. For actions that are not covered by the mechanics of the character sheet the referee will have to come up with his own method of adjudication.
For example Dan the Fighter using Basic D&D wants to put on a puppet show for some kids. The referee may have Dan roll under his dexterity and/or Charisma to judge the degree of success of the performance. Or perhaps just tells Dan to roll a d20 and add a modifier based on how well he roleplays.
Dan the GURPS character in contrast has skills that pertains to performing a puppet show. As a system GURPS offers more detail in creating a character. If the character doesn't have the skills GURPS has provisions for default use of skills.
Both system allow characters to perform a puppet show (or weave baskets) by the simple fact the games are about characters interacting with a setting as if they really exist coupled with allowing players to attempt anything that is possible. The difference lies in the details that the rule system focuses on. Basic D&D has no details in regard to performing puppet shows or basket weaving in which case the referee has to use what mechanics exist to come up with a ruling. GURPS in contrast does.
Neither D&D or GURPS FORBIDS Dan from performing a puppet show. Which is the point me and others are trying to make. When you are playing an RPG you are not limited to whats on your character sheet.
Quote from: MGuy;5889724) Now your response to 3 may be that you play in such a way that renders differences between stats for characters insignificant. If you're doing that then there really is no reason to even make stats for a character because you are just going to make them meaningless anyway and if you're going to do that I don't really understand why you would bother using stats at all.
Nowhere in my post do I say that stats should be rendered insignificant. Nor it is implied by what I said. It is logical and reasonable that characters have different and varying capabilities. It is implied by the fact that RPGs revolve around characters existing in a setting. How those differences are expressed depends on the details of the mechanics. Some like OD&D have less detail while others like GURPS have a great deal of detail. Which is best is a personal preference.
Here the question for you, in what RPG where a character can't attempt to perform a puppet show or weave a basket.
Quote from: estar;589020Neither D&D or GURPS FORBIDS Dan from performing a puppet show. Which is the point me and others are trying to make. When you are playing an RPG you are not limited to whats on your character sheet.
The problem with this point is several fold. I never said, and it has never been my point, that Dan shouldn't be able to perform or should be forbidden from performing a puppet show. My point was:
Quote from: MGuy;588941I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.
Which was in response to elf asking why one character is weaker than another. To connect it to what you are talking about I'm speaking about why a professional puppeteer who spent skill points and other resources to be a puppeteer is weaker than a character who actually spends there skills and class resources on being something more relevant.
QuoteNowhere in my post do I say that stats should be rendered insignificant. Nor it is implied by what I said.
If you follow what I said you would understand how it is implied. You literally said a character is not defined by their character sheet so a character with worse stats can be equal to a character with better stats.
QuoteIt is logical and reasonable that characters have different and varying capabilities. It is implied by the fact that RPGs revolve around characters existing in a setting. How those differences are expressed depends on the details of the mechanics. Some like OD&D have less detail while others like GURPS have a great deal of detail. Which is best is a personal preference.
Here the question for you, in what RPG where a character can't attempt to perform a puppet show or weave a basket.
And I have made no mention about whether or not more or less detail is best. Almost none of this post has anything to do with what I was talking about and does not effectively refute anything I said. Even your question basically ignores the fact that just earlier in this thread I said:
Quote from: mguyHere is a major part of the issue I just want to highlight. There are a couple of things here I wanna draw attention to:
1) There is nothing inherently "wrong" with basket weaving or having a profession in general. It is logical, thematic, and helps verisimilitude because in any functioning world there are mundane necessities and luxuries people spend money and time on producing and enjoying.
2)The problem is not that such a thing exists but that we are (at least as far as DnD is concerned) not at all hampered by not having these kind of skills and are only perhaps marginally aided by having them because in most cases having the ability to weave a basket is never going to come up even in a minor way in a campaign.
3) This problem gets worse when you take into account that learning how to basket weave directly takes away from your ability to do other, more important, and more useful skills. In point buy games basket weaving would cost much less than other,much more useful skills or abilities.
4) Basket weaving is known to be a weaker option and that can breed resentment for people not wanting to be handicapped by someone in the group choosing a domestic skill that in no way helps the group. This is exponentially worse if the person's entire character is based around it. Making characters that can't actually do anything significant to aid the adventure can be looked at as disruptive.
5) This issue is often times propagated when people put themselves into camps instead of looking at the issue in a sensible way. Some GMs will wholesale accept basket weaving antics and actually encourage them by forcibly stretching the campaign to involve the skill or stretching what the skill can actually do. Other camps will just wholly deny the same, claiming that people who do it are subhuman or being disruptive.
All these things can be solved at the design stage by either not making basket weaving a thing you can ever choose to do, making it so attempting to do it is something the GM has total control of and getting it doesn't cost you any significant resources, or by making it cost something different then what more significant abilities cost.
Quote from: Benoist;588967Actually type posts that are meaningful to the OP and conversation on this thread. Okay?
This is getting into the territory of being fair to the point of idiocy. A crackpot off his meds at a NASA conference says the moon is made of green cheese and these days the media reports "NASA scientists disagree on composition of the moon." Sometimes you just have to call it like it is, namely bullshit.
GC plays one game. 3.5 and that's it. He's a member of the Cult of Frank, he's a proselytizer. Any version of D&D from 0-3 is blah, blah, blah. No, he hasn't played any of them since he was 10. No he's never GM'd any of them, no he hasn't even read them in their entirety. He doesn't need to because Trollman.
He doesn't actually post about 3.5, or issues with 3.5, or rules adjustments or anything. All he does is shit on 0-3, PF and 4, and more importantly, the people who play those games because they are "basketweavers" and these people apparently get in the way of proper rules discussion. They are an actual threat to gaming I guess because game designers will ignore people like him with laser-like insight into how broken something is (weird that we see no fixes). Instead they'll listen to the basketweavers so basketweavers must go.
In other words, he is either an actual zealot, in which case there can be no conversation, or his entire purpose here is to shit up threads while waging war against the grogs,
in which case there can be no conversation. A pattern emerges...
Unlike DeadDM or Mguy who despite being mightily drunk on the CharOp Culture Koolaid actually contribute, GC is simply here to troll. Site disruption is the only reason GC even came here to begin with. How do we know? Despite many attempts at engagement, where is a single post actually discussing the mechanics of 3.5, the one game he plays and knows?
Now he's just making this post to bitch despite being warned against that, but I'm going to turn it into an on topic and useful post.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589032GC plays one game. 3.5 and that's it. He's a member of the Cult of Frank, he's a proselytizer. Any version of D&D from 0-3 is blah, blah, blah. No, he hasn't played any of them since he was 10. No he's never GM'd any of them, no he hasn't even read them in their entirety. He doesn't need to because Trollman.
Wrong on so many levels.
1: I have played the other games, I just moved on. Let me guess: Everyone that played Mario/Donkey Kong/the original Zelda when they were much younger and now don't never played those games?
2: Frank? Bitch please. Sure he's more likely to be right than anyone else on the Den but I hardly joined because of him or anything he said or did.
3: The Den as a whole doesn't talk that much about older editions (even to bash them) up until recently when they (yes they, not us) got into it with you.
QuoteHe doesn't actually post about 3.5, or issues with 3.5, or rules adjustments or anything. All he does is shit on 0-3, PF and 4, and more importantly, the people who play those games because they are "basketweavers" and these people apparently get in the way of proper rules discussion. They are an actual threat to gaming I guess because game designers will ignore people like him with laser-like insight into how broken something is (weird that we see no fixes). Instead they'll listen to the basketweavers so basketweavers must go.
In other words, he is either an actual zealot, in which case there can be no conversation, or his entire purpose here is to shit up threads while waging war against the grogs, in which case there can be no conversation. A pattern emerges...
Unlike DeadDM or Mguy who despite being mightily drunk on the CharOp Culture Koolaid actually contribute, GC is simply here to troll. Site disruption is the only reason GC even came here to begin with. How do we know? Despite many attempts at engagement, where is a single post actually discussing the mechanics of 3.5, the one game he plays and knows?
You don't see me talking about 3.5 mechanics here for several reasons:
1: It's against the fucking site rules. OHT gets mad and starts bitching and locking threads just by talking about actual play, much less posting mechanical demonstrations of any kind. You don't get to whine that I'm not proving it when you know full well that is disallowed.
2: It's a waste of time. People have already demonstrated that they'd only like me to present facts so that they can then ignore them. So sure I could write a bunch of stuff, demonstrate a tiny fraction of what I know... and totally fucking break basket weaver's brains in the process, ensuring no coherent response.
3: People just don't get it. I said at the very beginning that while the Den is better than most they just aren't my level. When discussing what is to me, painfully simple mechanics and concepts, it just blew their fucking minds. They didn't get it. They didn't understand it. Instead they lashed out, tried the same oppositional bullshit that didn't work here...
Were I to try the same with those here, they'd be reduced to gibbering heaps in an instant. The sort of thing I throw around as a DM and knock around as a player like it isn't even a thing? Not only would it kill their characters, it has a good shot at their
players. Simply because people love raging about proper play.
The only good thing that came of that whole fiasco is learning that apparently, when an encounter leaves the party taking something like 30 damage a round for the next 10 rounds and then they leave the area and leave the party to die and everything that involves (Concentration checks for ongoing damage to cast anything, etc) it's actually an easy encounter just because it's possible to heal and buff through that and then nuke them when they return for round 2.
So let's start simple. What am I allowed, and not allowed to say and do regarding the 3.5 rules? Mods? Anyone?
Quote from: MGuy;588941I can point out several reasons why it is weak up to and including using math. Math for a fighter is very easy to do considering all you really have to compare different fighters is how well they fight. If the game doesn't have options for making a wisdom/Charisma based fighter as effective as a regularly stat set fighter then making one that isn't physically beefy is folly.
Apparently it has never occurred to you that there's more than one way to skin a cat. It's true that most players with fighter PCs assign the highest scores to physical abilities, but there are other options that aren't necessarily "weaker". For example a fighter might assign a high score to wisdom or intelligence on the off chance he might get psionics, or to be able to read more languages or resist enchantment/charm spells. Depending on the campaign, these might be good choices. Charisma is another option for a fighter's highest score, since it improves his or her chances of recruiting loyal followers to do the dirty work.
QuoteYour example has several issues all its own. For one, randomness happened to be in your favor and that's not a reliable thing.
So?
Sometimes taking that kind of risk is worth it. We
are talking about games where random chance is a major factor, after all. I played a bard who was skilled with spears and javelins -weapons the other PCs turned up their noses at. Guess who got all those
javelins of lightning and
javelins of piercing from the official modules, and the magic spears, too?
QuoteFor two the result was of minimal importance. Had no one spoke Tamil I'm fairly sure the GM would have had the important NPC ALSO speak the local tongue (as that would make sense). For three I'm not sure what the game you're even playing is so there's a very good chance that other skills or abilities that have the same cost were similarly narrow in utility or may have been unnecessary considering your group.
The NPC spoke Spanish as well. Being the only two characters who could speak Tamil gave them a way to share information while keeping it secret from everyone else. This turned out to be a HUGE lifesaver for the group.
Quote from: MGuy;588976Yes that "can" happen but if you're playing a game where the fighter's ability to fight is rendered moot what exactly does the fighter offer the group that other characters with less fight relevant abilities not offer? The fighter, in concept and mechanics wise, already has limited uses as it is. If this is aggregated by the fact that someone's entire campaign renders the existence of a sword guy moot why even have the sword guy present in the first place?
Bullshit -a character is only as useless as the player allows him or her to be. If 0-level men-at-arms can be useful members of a group then a fighter who is rocking a 17 charisma instead of 17 STR can, too.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589040Now he's just making this post to bitch despite being warned against that, but I'm going to turn it into an on topic and useful post.
Why start now?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589040Wrong on so many levels.
Considering it's you, I know it will be, but let's check anyway, that whole pretending you're not a deliberate troll thing I'm supposed to do now.
Quote from: Mr. GC;5890401: I have played the other games, I just moved on. Let me guess: Everyone that played Mario/Donkey Kong/the original Zelda when they were much younger and now don't never played those games?
There's ONE tabletop RPG you play? Ok, so you are an actual Zealot.
Quote from: Mr. GC;5890402: Frank? Bitch please. Sure he's more likely to be right than anyone else on the Den but I hardly joined because of him or anything he said or did.
Didn't say you joined because of him, simply said you regurgitate his ideas.
Quote from: Mr. GC;5890403: The Den as a whole doesn't talk that much about older editions (even to bash them) up until recently when they (yes they, not us) got into it with you.
Yeah, it's Venn Diagram. There are sane people over on TDG.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589040You don't see me talking about 3.5 mechanics here for several reasons:
Let the dodging commence...
Quote from: Mr. GC;5890401: It's against the fucking site rules. OHT gets mad and starts bitching and locking threads just by talking about actual play, much less posting mechanical demonstrations of any kind. You don't get to whine that I'm not proving it when you know full well that is disallowed.
You're a disingenuous fuck. Dan closed threads in which LM says he's going to look through actual rules for discussion, and then just continues with Culture War bullshit. All you have to offer is Culture War bullshit, so yeah, expect to have a thread closed down.
Quote from: Mr. GC;5890402: It's a waste of time. People have already demonstrated that they'd only like me to present facts so that they can then ignore them. So sure I could write a bunch of stuff, demonstrate a tiny fraction of what I know... and totally fucking break basket weaver's brains in the process, ensuring no coherent response.
"I can prove it...but I'm not going to.", among adults, is called not having proof. Just so you know.
Quote from: Mr. GC;5890403: People just don't get it. I said at the very beginning that while the Den is better than most they just aren't my level. When discussing what is to me, painfully simple mechanics and concepts, it just blew their fucking minds. They didn't get it. They didn't understand it. Instead they lashed out, tried the same oppositional bullshit that didn't work here...
So you posted opinions as facts and got called on it there too? Like I said, there are sane people at TGD.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589040Were I to try the same with those here, they'd be reduced to gibbering heaps in an instant. The sort of thing I throw around as a DM and knock around as a player like it isn't even a thing? Not only would it kill their characters, it has a good shot at their players. Simply because people love raging about proper play.
So you possess some form of Lovecraftian Truth about the OneTrueWay to play, eh? Something that would blow apart the craniums of those poor children of a lesser god? Thanks again for proving your only purpose here is trolling.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589040The only good thing that came of that whole fiasco is learning that apparently, when an encounter leaves the party taking something like 30 damage a round for the next 10 rounds and then they leave the area and leave the party to die and everything that involves (Concentration checks for ongoing damage to cast anything, etc) it's actually an easy encounter just because it's possible to heal and buff through that and then nuke them when they return for round 2.
Somehow I don't think we'll take your word for what came out of the thread on TGD.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589040So let's start simple. What am I allowed, and not allowed to say and do regarding the 3.5 rules? Mods? Anyone?
Try by creating a thread about a game you actually know something about without it being a ridiculously obvious cover for trolling against games you know nothing about filled with attacks against the people who play the games you know nothing about.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589046There's ONE tabletop RPG you play? Ok, so you are an actual Zealot.
You heard it here first folks. If you don't play multiple different games at the same time you're a zealot.
QuoteDidn't say you joined because of him, simply said you regurgitate his ideas.
I regarded basket weavers as contemptible well before joining TGD.
QuoteYou're a disingenuous fuck. Dan closed threads in which LM says he's going to look through actual rules for discussion, and then just continues with Culture War bullshit. All you have to offer is Culture War bullshit, so yeah, expect to have a thread closed down.
He closes anything that even suggests "Thunderdome" which could be arena fights or it could be running an actual play scenario.
QuoteSo you possess some form of Lovecraftian Truth about the OneTrueWay to play, eh? Something that would blow apart the craniums of those poor children of a lesser god? Thanks again for proving your only purpose here is trolling.
Your continuous retard posts aside, given that is what actually happens and what keeps actually happening yeah, I'd say that effective play fucking tentacle rapes people. Hell if I know why they flip the fuck out though.
I'd like a response from someone official, or failing that someone who has something to add other than "Must rage about Mr. GC and his ideas for effective play while claiming said ideas do not anger others!"
As for you, don't bother responding. I'm done with you.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589053"Must rage about Mr. GC and his ideas for effective play while claiming said ideas do not anger others!"
As for you, don't bother responding. I'm done with you.
Meaning of course that you actually have none of these ideas you claim Dan is suppressing. :rotfl:
Quote from: Mr. GC;588687If we're talking about older editions... you mean to tell me whether you get an "18/00" or a "5" has fuck all to do with character creation? Even though stats not only determine classes but how well those classes function? And that's just the easiest example.
In older editions, you don't get to choose to get an 18/00.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;589069In older editions, you don't get to choose to get an 18/00.
RPGPundit
Additionally, OD&D and B/X gave rather minimal bonuses for high scores. They truly were bonuses rather than a primary means to survive.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589032This is getting into the territory of being fair to the point of idiocy. A crackpot off his meds at a NASA conference says the moon is made of green cheese and these days the media reports "NASA scientists disagree on composition of the moon." Sometimes you just have to call it like it is, namely bullshit.
Which I actualy did myself, as far as GC's concerned. You can see our exchange on this thread. But I don't consider one-liners in this precise context to do anything constructive for this thread other than launching another round of "fuck-yous" and just perpetuating the bullshit, which, sooner or later, you might get called on... not by me, but by the Pundit who's warned everybody about just throwing baits at these guys.
Quote from: Benoist;589072Which I actualy did myself, as far as GC's concerned. You can see our exchange on this thread. But I don't consider one-liners in this precise context to do anything constructive for this thread other than launching another round of "fuck-yous" and just perpetuating the bullshit, which, sooner or later, you might get called on not by me, but by the Pundit who's warned everybody about just throwing baits at these guys.
Just for myself, and not to challenge anyone's call about this, but I don't see how a wall of text is different than a one liner 'fuck you' in this context. Especially the walls of text slightly above this post.
Again, I am not challenging anyone's call or trying to start a huge argument. Clearly, I would not come out on top; but I also have no interest. If the only 'safe' path left is to leave these folks alone, then 'loud and clear'. No arguments from me. But like CRKreuger is pointing out, let's also not pretend more text actually means more content.
EDIT: With that aside, I am still unconvinced a complex or even comprehensive skill system is objectively beneficial for a class/level system. Something like 2e lite would probably be about as far as I would want to go with that.
On the other hand, something like Pundit's Arrows of Indra, where the customizable skills are generally mundane, somewhat random, and generally contextually useful would seem to work fairly well. On the gripping hand, making the entire game skill based then obfuscating that from the players via classes built from templates using the skills makes for the greatest flexibility in my view. I am still working out some mechanics on how that would work, but 'classes' would be extremely bare-bones; ie, 'Fighter' has d10 for hit points, uses the best combat progression table, gets the highest Con bonus... and that's about it. Everything else would be added on in the background, xp calculated, wrapped up and presented to the players. Major bonus: making new classes is a breeze, and more or less automatically 'balanced'
Dictionary says this....World English Dictionary
basketweaver (ˈbɑːskɪtˌwiːvə)
— n
derogatory , slang ( Austral ) a person who advocates simple, natural, and unsophisticated living
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source
00:09Basketweaver is always a great word to know.
So is zedonk. Does it mean: So is flibbertigibbet. Does it mean:
So is interrobang. Does it mean: a fool or simpleton; ninny.
the offspring of a zebra and a donkey.
a chattering or flighty, light-headed person.
a stew of meat, vegetables, potatoes, etc.
a children's mummer's parade, as on the Fourth of July, with prizes for the best costumes.
a printed punctuation mark (‽), available only in some typefaces, designed to combine the question mark (?) and the exclamation point (!), indicating a mixture of query and interjection, as after a rhetorical question.
LEARN MORE UNUSUAL WORDS WITH WORD DYNAMO...
Explore the Visual Thesaurus »Related Words for : basketweaver
basketmaker
View more related words »
WordNetbasketweaver
noun
someone skilled in weaving baskets
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Cite This Source
Word Dynamo By Dictionary.comSearching for basketweaver? How many words do you actually know?FIND OUT
Interrobang is the punctuation mark. :D
Quote from: StormBringer;589073Just for myself, and not to challenge anyone's call about this, but I don't see how a wall of text is different than a one liner 'fuck you' in this context. Especially the walls of text slightly above this post.
Well the difference to me is clarity. I'm not asking anyone to write walls of text, but to be clear that a message isn't just there to say "fuck you", i.e. bait, and that's it. Something like "Hey, psssst. Role playing, not roll playing" can be misinterpreted in plenty of ways including the purely disruptive "fuck you". Describing, however, what you mean as an actual argument people can respond to or rebound on, then there's no room for interpretation as that being a post of no value whatsoever just there to show the finger. See what I mean?
Then again, the last judge of that is going to be the Pundit. I'm just trying to tell you "hey, be mindful because that could be misinterpreted."
Quote from: Benoist;589076Well the difference to me is clarity.
Then again, the last judge of that is going to be the Pundit. I'm just trying to tell you "hey, be mindful because that could be misinterpreted."
As I said, fully understandable. I just wanted to point out the content on both sides amounts to "fuck you", and your extended reply didn't really change that.
Honestly, I am not going to respond to them anymore, it doesn't actually matter at this point. I just want to make sure there are fair calls.
Quote from: Opaopajr;588839For me this is the only really valuable take-away from this thread.
Wow! Kind words. Thanks!
QuoteThat's why this argument has been so specious. Trying to apply a subjective table issue as an epithet to all players of other games (especially of games you yourself have no real experience of) is just a childish waste of time.
I'd agree. As far as I can tell, the only reason to play an RPG is to have fun. Whichever style of play is fun for you, play with a group that plays that way and have a good time. Another group will do things a totally different way and they'll have fun from a different direction. *shrug* How does one affect the other, really?
Quote from: Elfdart;589042Apparently it has never occurred to you that there's more than one way to skin a cat. It's true that most players with fighter PCs assign the highest scores to physical abilities, but there are other options that aren't necessarily "weaker". For example a fighter might assign a high score to wisdom or intelligence on the off chance he might get psionics, or to be able to read more languages or resist enchantment/charm spells. Depending on the campaign, these might be good choices. Charisma is another option for a fighter's highest score, since it improves his or her chances of recruiting loyal followers to do the dirty work.
He can do those things but if he's more worried about resisting mind affects, attracting followers, and reading more languages why isn't he just a cleric? There is nothing that being a fighter does for the concept of knowing more languages, resisting "stuff" etc, that simply being a cleric doesn't give. I'm not really sure how "being a psion" works in earlier editions but if it isn't something you can bank on (which the way you suggest it here it is not) then it isn't worth reinvesting points into things that don't make you better at "being a fighter".
QuoteSo?
Sometimes taking that kind of risk is worth it. We are talking about games where random chance is a major factor, after all. I played a bard who was skilled with spears and javelins -weapons the other PCs turned up their noses at. Guess who got all those javelins of lightning and javelins of piercing from the official modules, and the magic spears, too?
The problem with "What if" situations like this is that for every "it worked out" you can come up with it could also "not work out". There could be any number of factors that can make you choosing to specialize in javelins for no reason into something that was simply a waste. What if there wasn't that much combat? What if someone else was in the party who was better at using javelins than you? What if there were no javelins? I could go on but such a thing is useless.
What's more is specializing in using a weapon is a useful skill to have and thus does not fall into "basket weaver" territory. Being able to hit stuff with a weapon is part of the motif and not a fringe thing.
QuoteThe NPC spoke Spanish as well. Being the only two characters who could speak Tamil gave them a way to share information while keeping it secret from everyone else. This turned out to be a HUGE lifesaver for the group.
And again, if you didn't know Tamil or could've communicated with him in another fashion (which isn't an unreasonable thing to assume), then the adventure would have still gone on whether or not you would've had the ability to speak Tamil. The adventure might have been different but it would've still gone on. Plus who's to say some other bad npc might not have been able to pick up on Tamil?
QuoteBullshit -a character is only as useless as the player allows him or her to be. If 0-level men-at-arms can be useful members of a group then a fighter who is rocking a 17 charisma instead of 17 STR can, too.
"If" and that's a pretty big if. To counter I'll give some of my own: What if that 0-level men at arms isn't useful to the group?What if his low saves/hp only makes him a liability? What if by the act of playing as that men at arms you let down the group and cause other members of your team to die? What if the other players aren't up for having a game where one of the players purposefully gimps themselves for no reason?
These questions don't really matter, because these are all hypothetical. I have better questions though. Is there any reason that you don't think the game would be better separating "lesser" skills than more relevant skills? How is the game served better by actively punishing players for choosing to pick up things like basket weaving instead of perception?
Quote from: CRKrueger;589032This is getting into the territory of being fair to the point of idiocy. A crackpot off his meds at a NASA conference says the moon is made of green cheese and these days the media reports "NASA scientists disagree on composition of the moon." Sometimes you just have to call it like it is, namely bullshit.
Yeah. But after several times, the best is to ignore it.
QuoteGC plays one game. 3.5 and that's it.
That is not a problem in itself. That just disqualifies you to speak about game design in general.
QuoteThey are an actual threat to gaming I guess because game designers will ignore people like him with laser-like insight into how broken something is (weird that we see no fixes).
It's true. I don't see proposals to fix "broken" rules.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589040You don't see me talking about 3.5 mechanics here for several reasons:
1: It's against the fucking site rules. OHT gets mad and starts bitching and locking threads just by talking about actual play, much less posting mechanical demonstrations of any kind. You don't get to whine that I'm not proving it when you know full well that is disallowed.
Untrue. You can tal about any game you damn well please, even storygames. What you cannot do is pretend being a knwledgeable person on game desing while not knowing shit about it.
Quote3: People just don't get it. I said at the very beginning that while the Den is better than most they just aren't my level.
Your level of what? Ignorance? Trollish behavior? Lack of social skills? Failing the Turing test? What is, oh Genius of Game Design who fails at basic math and probability calculations and knowing about games?
Quote from: CRKrueger;589046So you possess some form of Lovecraftian Truth about the OneTrueWay to play, eh? Something that would blow apart the craniums of those poor children of a lesser god?
The level of pretentiousness is unbelievable. :D
Quote from: Mr. GC;589053You heard it here first folks. If you don't play multiple different games at the same time you're a zealot.
You can't read.
Quote from: RPGPundit;589069In older editions, you don't get to choose to get an 18/00.
RPGPundit
Sure you do. You roll and if you don't get it, you reroll (either normally, or via death and reroll). Or you get one of those Str setting items. And since this gives large flat bonuses in a game where there aren't many bonuses it makes a huge difference.
That said, I asked a question to the mods and a mod and an admin posted without even acknowledging it. So am I to take that as a no?
I just want to be clear. Talking about 3.0, 3.5 or any edition is absolutely fine on therpgsite. Statements that it isn't or that threads get closed simply for mentioning a particular edition of D&D are incorrect. If you want to discuss a mod call or policy take it to the help desk.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589179I just want to be clear. Talking about 3.0, 3.5 or any edition is absolutely fine on therpgsite. Statements that it isn't or that threads get closed simply for mentioning a particular edition of D&D are incorrect. If you want to discuss a mod call or policy take it to the help desk.
And yet multiple threads were locked for this reason. Is it the "Thunderdome" type stuff that isn't allowed? I'm actually not being difficult here, I really am trying to find where the line is drawn.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589185And yet multiple threads were locked for this reason. Is it the "Thunderdome" type stuff that isn't allowed? I'm actually not being difficult here, I really am trying to find where the line is drawn.
As I said, if you have a mod policy question, post it in the help desk forum. No, no threads have ever been locked for that reason. These were not closed because they contained posts about 3E. They were closed because they devolved into off-topic insult and battle threads like the Rules not Rulings thread.
Quote from: TheHistorian;589107Wow! Kind words. Thanks!
Anytime! You're contributing meaningfully and sound like a welcome addition to this board. Here, have a cheerleader, because I'm not tired of the smilie yet.
:cheerleader:
Quote from: TheHistorian;589107... As far as I can tell, the only reason to play an RPG is to have fun. Whichever style of play is fun for you, play with a group that plays that way and have a good time. Another group will do things a totally different way and they'll have fun from a different direction. *shrug* How does one affect the other, really?
Because somewhere, out there, is a person playing
wrong! And they'll be like this social land mine out there, just waiting to place you in a situation where you'll have to *gasp* act like an adult and communicate with others. If we cleanse the earth of these social land mines then we can travel to every table and play the same way! And Jupiter will align with Mars, then peace will guide the planets, and love will steer the stars!
It's like the nonsense when people expect to hear the same top 40 pap in every nightclub. And god, don't get me started on those shmoes who whinge to the DJ for the same tunes, complainin' "you work for me!" Leave the artist alone and get out if you can't deal. Same applies to tables and GMs. I ain't your babysitter or human-Amiga; if you want a faceless machine to run rpgs for you, go somewhere like RPGA/Living/Society or anywhere else.
When you play RPGs you gotta be prepared to deal with the human element. If you cannot handle that fact, the solution is not to stamp out the human element; it's to play another game. Rules will not save you from interacting with humanity.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589185And yet multiple threads were locked for this reason. Is it the "Thunderdome" type stuff that isn't allowed? I'm actually not being difficult here, I really am trying to find where the line is drawn.
The big problem with "Thunderdome" questions is that it is completely biased.
Like your example with group vs. a dragon, psionist, etc. The group divines what they need and plan accordingly, yet the 'opposition' never does? The same 'opposition' that should know far in advance on who is coming...
Thunderdome died due to role playing combat to death through natural causes, like congenital heart failure or badgering the table second guessing the GM to quit. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: Sommerjon;589203The big problem with "Thunderdome" questions is that it is completely biased.
Like your example with group vs. a dragon, psionist, etc. The group divines what they need and plan accordingly, yet the 'opposition' never does? The same 'opposition' that should know far in advance on who is coming...
In this example, they have more power in one location than many nations. Living in extreme fear of an attack without reason is unreasonable. Having the means to generally, but not always detect an attack well in advance without divinations? Reasonable.
Now had the party fought some stuff, then left and come back tomorrow they'd have found that Druid used Scrying and other such effects to learn what just happened, and what they need to deal with and so the enemy group would be much better prepared to deal with the party.
That said, if I were to use an actual demonstration here I wouldn't use that example. Both because people know enough of it to metagame it, and because even with that metagame knowledge I suspect their parties would be dying horribly without getting very far and I certainly need no convincing that weak characters die horribly in actual games. If I were to do such a demonstration, it would be proving basket weavers are invalid by putting weak classes up against enemies also restricted to weak classes in a scenario that is so laughably easy my friend's 9 year old nephew could faceroll right on through it and having the party die horribly anyways even when they are being played down to as people claim should happen. Alternately I would pick a specific weak class (probably Fighter or Rogue) and show how they lose horribly to an easy fight, all without going outside of core. There are others I could show as well, including alternate demonstrations of proper play but as OHT gets mad about those posts regardless of what Brendan says I'm not doing that without getting the go ahead.
Quote from: MGuy;589149He can do those things but if he's more worried about resisting mind affects, attracting followers, and reading more languages why isn't he just a cleric? There is nothing that being a fighter does for the concept of knowing more languages, resisting "stuff" etc, that simply being a cleric doesn't give. I'm not really sure how "being a psion" works in earlier editions but if it isn't something you can bank on (which the way you suggest it here it is not) then it isn't worth reinvesting points into things that don't make you better at "being a fighter".
Class means different things to different people. Perhaps the player wants to play a Fighter, not a cleric who fights?
Quote from: MGuy;589149The problem with "What if" situations like this is that for every "it worked out" you can come up with it could also "not work out". There could be any number of factors that can make you choosing to specialize in javelins for no reason into something that was simply a waste. What if there wasn't that much combat? What if someone else was in the party who was better at using javelins than you? What if there were no javelins? I could go on but such a thing is useless.
What's more is specializing in using a weapon is a useful skill to have and thus does not fall into "basket weaver" territory. Being able to hit stuff with a weapon is part of the motif and not a fringe thing.
That is why you should 'optimize' to the group and not the rule system.
Quote from: MGuy;589149And again, if you didn't know Tamil or could've communicated with him in another fashion (which isn't an unreasonable thing to assume), then the adventure would have still gone on whether or not you would've had the ability to speak Tamil. The adventure might have been different but it would've still gone on. Plus who's to say some other bad npc might not have been able to pick up on Tamil?
Group dynamics.
I guess it depends on how fleshed out the setting is. Perhaps you have never come across someone who has information you need, need to ask the proper question, or have to give them something to relate to in order to get the information, but I sure have countless times.
Quote from: MGuy;589149"If" and that's a pretty big if. To counter I'll give some of my own: What if that 0-level men at arms isn't useful to the group?What if his low saves/hp only makes him a liability? What if by the act of playing as that men at arms you let down the group and cause other members of your team to die? What if the other players aren't up for having a game where one of the players purposefully gimps themselves for no reason?
These questions don't really matter, because these are all hypothetical. I have better questions though. Is there any reason that you don't think the game would be better separating "lesser" skills than more relevant skills? How is the game served better by actively punishing players for choosing to pick up things like basket weaving instead of perception?
By breathing life into the setting.
Type III D&D has huge problems with skills and skill point allocation. Some skills are artificially inflated and others are artificially deflated, classes have the wrong skill selections, skills acquisition is based upon the wrong stat, etc.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589211That said, if I were to use an actual demonstration here I wouldn't use that example. Both because people know enough of it to metagame it, and because even with that metagame knowledge I suspect their parties would be dying horribly without getting very far and I certainly need no convincing that weak characters die horribly in actual games. If I were to do such a demonstration, it would be proving basket weavers are invalid by putting weak classes up against enemies also restricted to weak classes in a scenario that is so laughably easy my friend's 9 year old nephew could faceroll right on through it and having the party die horribly anyways even when they are being played down to as people claim should happen. Alternately I would pick a specific weak class (probably Fighter or Rogue) and show how they lose horribly to an easy fight, all without going outside of core. There are others I could show as well, including alternate demonstrations of proper play but as OHT gets mad about those posts regardless of what Brendan says I'm not doing that without getting the go ahead.
Not everyone plays the same way you do? Perhaps you enjoy this style of gaming and that's great for you. I and others here do not. If you truly think there is 'proper play' for roleplaying games...well I am sorry I do not live up to your standards of proper play. Fortunately for me, I do not have to game with you, me and my group of unproper playing players will do just fine in our clueless oblivion.
(
To me) this shows the greatest failure of type III D&D. I like Fighters, I like Rogues and type III D&D shit on them in favor of 'mmaaaggiiicc' It's a shame.
Quote from: Sommerjon;589214Not everyone plays the same way you do? Perhaps you enjoy this style of gaming and that's great for you. I and others here do not. If you truly think there is 'proper play' for roleplaying games...well I am sorry I do not live up to your standards of proper play. Fortunately I do not have to game with you, me and my group of unproper players will do just fine in our clueless oblivion.
(To me) this shows the greatest failure of type III D&D. I like Fighters, I like Rogues and type III D&D shit on them in favor of 'mmaaaggiiicc' It's a shame.
Assuming you're looking for a discussion: What is Type I/II/III by your definition? If it's edition based it falls flat on its face as Rogues (or thieves if you'd prefer) have always been bad, and Fighters haven't been much better.
And yes I do think that there are right (proper) ways of doing something and wrong ways.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589215And yes I do think that there are right (proper) ways of doing something and wrong ways.
[sarcasm]Yes, you are absolutely correct: the way my group plays is the right way to play. Anyone who plays even slightly differently is playing wrong.[/sarcasm]
Quote from: Sommerjon;589212Class means different things to different people. Perhaps the player wants to play a Fighter, not a cleric who fights?
That is why you should 'optimize' to the group and not the rule system.
You realize that still involves using the rules right?
QuoteGroup dynamics.
I guess it depends on how fleshed out the setting is. Perhaps you have never come across someone who has information you need, need to ask the proper question, or have to give them something to relate to in order to get the information, but I sure have countless times.
I had a brief discussion about how plot doesn't die because you don't have the "Right" language but such a thing still applies. If you don't have the right language, access to flying magic monkey, a ship, whatever the plot will change a bit but still go on. No game is going to center around you having a niche ability.
QuoteBy breathing life into the setting.
Type III D&D has huge problems with skills and skill point allocation. Some skills are artificially inflated and others are artificially deflated, classes have the wrong skill selections, skills acquisition is based upon the wrong stat, etc.
None of this answers the question. You can still have basket weaving the skill and have it not cost as much as perception. My question is why doing that is bad/worth arguing against and how is the game better by forcing people to choose between a thematic but marginally useful skill and a general but valuable skill?>?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589215Assuming you're looking for a discussion: What is Type I/II/III by your definition? If it's edition based it falls flat on its face as Rogues (or thieves if you'd prefer) have always been bad, and Fighters haven't been much better.
And yes I do think that there are right (proper) ways of doing something and wrong ways.
Sure I'll have a discussion with you, however if you are going to 'try to get all up in my face' I wont even bother.
I saw over on one of them links people were flashing around recently from tgd of all places someone using type instead of edition. I really like that better. It's all D&D they just happen to be different types of D&D.
If you prefer a different type of D&D more power to yous guys, just don;t poo on someone else's type of D&D.
My liking of Fighters and Rogues isn't bound by D&D standards, personally I never found D&D to really scratch my fantasy itch as well as other systems do. It works, but D&D has always been slanted heavily towards magic classes.
Quote from: MGuy;589230You realize that still involves using the rules right?
Yep, but it is not done in a vacuum.
Quote from: MGuy;589230I had a brief discussion about how plot doesn't die because you don't have the "Right" language but such a thing still applies. If you don't have the right language, access to flying magic monkey, a ship, whatever the plot will change a bit but still go on. No game is going to center around you having a niche ability.
Never meant that it should. However, the difficulty can be quite different. Like going to the DMV it can either be a stressing experience or somewhat pleasant one. I know I try to use that little touch of 'reality' when I game. I would much rather see people engage the setting by using a touch of reality then just the +mod on the sheet. like you need information about Scary Mountain and an old crusty dwarf has the information, who should ask for the information the dwarf pc who has no skill in diplomacy or the elf pc who is overflowing with diplomacy? More often than not in a type of D&D with diplomacy it's the elf. I found that unfortunate.
That is where a lot of the people here who disagree with you are coming from. They want to engage the setting not engage the system.
Quote from: MGuy;589230None of this answers the question. You can still have basket weaving the skill and have it not cost as much as perception. My question is why doing that is bad/worth arguing against and how is the game better by forcing people to choose between a thematic but marginally useful skill and a general but valuable skill?>?
Because some over emphasize the importance of a few skills. It is a playstyle issue.
Quote from: Sommerjon;589239Yep, but it is not done in a vacuum.
I'm fairly sure I haven't mentioned any vacuums. I'm being as general as I can be about the subject. "Basket Weaver" as I defined it earlier doesn't mean much until you know what the motif/focus of the campaign is.
QuoteNever meant that it should. However, the difficulty can be quite different. Like going to the DMV it can either be a stressing experience or somewhat pleasant one. I know I try to use that little touch of 'reality' when I game. I would much rather see people engage the setting by using a touch of reality then just the +mod on the sheet. like you need information about Scary Mountain and an old crusty dwarf has the information, who should ask for the information the dwarf pc who has no skill in diplomacy or the elf pc who is overflowing with diplomacy? More often than not in a type of D&D with diplomacy it's the elf. I found that unfortunate.
That disappointment is odd but not surprising. It sounds like there're certain expectations you have and anything that runs counter to that disables your ability to extrapolate the results. If the Elf's diplomacy score is so high that it trumps having another dwarf speak to dwarves perhaps that elf has become practiced at speaking with races of different kinds (like a diplomat would be). Perhaps he's even known among dwarven circles. Perhaps he even has the dwarf in the group present and vouching for him.
QuoteThat is where a lot of the people here who disagree with you are coming from. They want to engage the setting not engage the system.
The problem I'm having with people here is that for every argument I make people invent another position for me that involves attacking their playstyle and imagine I'm attacking that, then proceed to defend against an argument I didn't make. Like take this discussion for example. Half the responses assume that I want to get rid of "basket weaving" skills (as in elf's post). You assume I'm talking about games in a vacuum where, in this case, I'm not. There's also been mention of the player's ability to make up for a poorly crafted character that both require the player being allowed by the GM to minimize the character's weaknesses. What's worse people are twisting me pointing out that this is happening at all as an attack on their playstyle. I'd have to say that's my biggest problem with this board; that when you point out "this shit is happening" that must mean I'm saying it is badwrong.
What I'm saying here is that certain skills (perception) has obvious and valuable uses in any situation. There is almost no game where perception isn't a thing you want to have. There are vanishingly few games where being able to basket weave is something useful, and as stated before a number of those games have to force basket weaving to come up (or in your case it could happen completely at random) or the GM allows basket weaving to do more than weaving baskets. At the same time getting craft: woven baskets directly prevents you from getting skills like perception and there is really is no reason to let that continue at all.
QuoteBecause some over emphasize the importance of a few skills. It is a playstyle issue.
I'm not even sure what you mean. I'm going to have to ask for examples or more details. It is not hard to see which skills are always valuable to have (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Hide, Bluff, Perception, Survival, Disable Device, etc) and which ones have marginal use at best (Knowledge: Nobility, Appraise, Profession, etc). There may be some people that overvalue things like Profession or even GMs that force you to have at least one profession (I've had a GM like that) but in every case those skills are given away as a bonus or have extra abilities attached to them so I'm not kicked in the balls (as hard) for adding flavor to my character.
Quote from: Sommerjon;589235Sure I'll have a discussion with you, however if you are going to 'try to get all up in my face' I wont even bother.
I saw over on one of them links people were flashing around recently from tgd of all places someone using type instead of edition. I really like that better. It's all D&D they just happen to be different types of D&D.
If you prefer a different type of D&D more power to yous guys, just don;t poo on someone else's type of D&D.
My liking of Fighters and Rogues isn't bound by D&D standards, personally I never found D&D to really scratch my fantasy itch as well as other systems do. It works, but D&D has always been slanted heavily towards magic classes.
I've still never heard of that terminology and I don't see it used there either. Now you're right that D&D in all editions is pretty heavily skewed towards magic, though this is mainly because non magical characters don't have a very wide array of abilities. So even if you can avoid problems such as "combatant who is not relevant in combat" you still can't do anything to influence the plot, or anything useful outside of battle.
The second reason is because your opponents are either magical or things that non magic can't really deal with. Sure some big giant is just swinging a greatclub around, but that weapon is twice as big as you are. You have essentially no chance of killing him before he kills you unless you're using a lot of magic (and I don't just mean stat boosting gear, I also mean utility magic items and the like).
Even at low levels, show me how a non magical person melees down an Ogre. They don't. D&D characters are expected to and often cannot.
Now to tie this back into the main subject of the thread, if it were just that certain classes couldn't play D&D, well the game would go on with those that can. And there's quite a few that can, they're just the magical ones. I'd say around half the classes can. And 50% of options making the cut as usable is amazingly good. Normally there's only about 10-20% worth using.
But that isn't all there is to it. The basket weavers not only refuse to play an adventurer that can adventure but try to drag down others as well and try to drag down discussions as well. Neither of which are at all acceptable, and the combination of these two things makes it so that what should be a simple or at most moderately difficult problem to solve instead becomes essentially impossible, all due to a mindset that promotes the antithesis of good play.
I find it highly ironic that I am both one of the worst 'basket weavers' on this site, constantly supporting sub-par builds and promoting non-specialisation as a more realistic choice for most PCs, whilst at the same time being one of the very few posters that had time for the denners position and agreed with most of their maths.
It is the case that low level D&D characters are at the mercy of a lucky combat roll.
It is the case that Magic Users would be more 'balanced' if they got more spell slots earlier and less later so flatening their power curve.
It is the case that clerics are more powerful in old D&D editions compared to other classes.
However....
It is also true that
The ability to customise your character to an unplayably gimped level didn't exist in D&D until 3x
Playing a character that does not excel in combat is only critically bad if combat makes up the majority of your game and even then its a roleplay opportunity. The craven figther that tries to avoid combat and hides when it happens is a valid PC.
Not all D&D is about combat. As I have stated previously I have played D&D games where there are no combats for multi sessions.
The most ironic thing is the people who critised me for playing 1e characters who didn't follow the 10 foot pole professional adventurer paradigm which relies on player skill are now in an argument with people who are saying you need to pick a character that maximises their numbers through player skill.
Both paradigms are about player skill trumping role play the Stormwind Falacy I believe it was flagged as :)
One says you should always take a bag of flour with you becuase you can use it to identify and track invisible creatures
The other says you should always make sure by 4th level you have selected an item or a skill that allows you to identify invisible opponents.
To me these are both the same thing. Where as I might well say ... I'm a low level fighter with low inteligence and low wisdom...what's an invisible opponent look like?
Quote from: jibbajibba;589251Not all D&D is about combat. As I have stated previously I have played D&D games where there are no combats for multi sessions.
...
To me these are both the same thing. Where as I might well say ... I'm a low level fighter with low inteligence and low wisdom...what's an invisible opponent look like?
I'm now teaching my gf and a few others how to play DnD (started last week and will continue this week) and I have to get her off the "I can just kill my way through every problem" bike. I have a strong distaste for every fighter knowing how to approach invisible targets that they've never had any experience in dealing with. I have the same distaste for people that think casting a single spell should solve every problem (there was going to be some sleep shenanigans in that game with no forward thinking about how people would react to it). These are what I'd call a problem with the player.
What I don't think is a problem with the player is having a nonfunctional character. A character that
has to rely on me (the GM) just to be able to do stuff at all is anathema to me. While I don't think DnD is all about combat (as I believe exploration, info gathering, diplomacy, etc are valid options) I do believe that Craft: Woven Baskets doesn't do anything to help in anything that a given campaign would be focused on. Now there may~ be a game out there where you're playing Logistics and Dragons and the number of baskets you can make in a given time is a necessary thing to know I'd think that that type of game is exceedingly rare and I'd have to point out that diplomacy, bluff, etc are still important even in that game making those skills still more flexible and valuable then a character's ability to weave baskets.
Quote from: jibbajibba;589251Playing a character that does not excel in combat is only critically bad if combat makes up the majority of your game and even then its a roleplay opportunity. The craven figther that tries to avoid combat and hides when it happens is a valid PC.
Not all D&D is about combat. As I have stated previously I have played D&D games where there are no combats for multi sessions.
Ultimately it doesn't matter how often combat comes up. If it is any number greater than 0, then when combat comes you can either deal with it or you cannot, and if you cannot (including a Fighter that runs and hides when called upon to do his thing) then one way or the other you're getting out of that game. Could be via character death, could be via party booting them...
If it is 0, you're not only playing the worst game imaginable for a conflict less scenario but you're playing one of the worst classes for the same as it isn't as if you can do meaningful things outside of combat (meaningful being beyond what a Commoner could manage).
QuoteOne says you should always take a bag of flour with you becuase you can use it to identify and track invisible creatures
The other says you should always make sure by 4th level you have selected an item or a skill that allows you to identify invisible opponents.
To me these are both the same thing. Where as I might well say ... I'm a low level fighter with low inteligence and low wisdom...what's an invisible opponent look like?
These are not the same thing at all. See, the main threat of an invisible opponent is that
you don't know they're there.
See Invisibility allows you to deal with this.
Bags of flour only allow you to deal with it if you know they are there (meaning, already announced themselves as a threat and broke normal invisibility, so we're assuming Improved or Superior here) and know at least approximately where they are (with no detection abilities, good luck with that).
Team See Invis can see the invisible ambush before it actually ambushes them. Flour spammers can at best reveal the attacker (assuming again they have not revealed themselves) after they've already been hit by an ambush, and given that 1: This is D&D. 2: They just got ambushed. 3: Their best answer to invisibility, a basic threat is bags of flour it is very likely half or more of the party just died in the surprise round on account of general weakness.
"I might be visible, but you're dead!"
Sounds like a win for Team Monster to me.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589258Ultimately it doesn't matter how often combat comes up. If it is any number greater than 0, then when combat comes you can either deal with it or you cannot, and if you cannot (including a Fighter that runs and hides when called upon to do his thing) then one way or the other you're getting out of that game. Could be via character death, could be via party booting them...
I've been playing D&D since 1975 and I can think of a good number of cowardly or combat-incompetent characters who who survived for many levels by avoiding direct combat as much as possible. And I've never been in a group of players who booted any character for not being useful enough in combat -- or any other part of the game for that matter. Players have occasionally be booted for being jerks, but never for not playing competent-enough characters. If your games run that way, fine -- but not all games do.
Quote from: MGuy;589247I'm fairly sure I haven't mentioned any vacuums. I'm being as general as I can be about the subject. "Basket Weaver" as I defined it earlier doesn't mean much until you know what the motif/focus of the campaign is.
A character who decides to pick up Craft: Basket Weave is not necessarily "weak". As I understand it "basket weaver" is supposed to refer to someone who pays no heed to the rules of the game and plays a character not fit for the motif of the game. As in the person chooses to play a professional basket weaver in a game about big damn heroes.
Now, assuming the player doesn't focus on Craft:Basket Weaving may still end up being a valuable member of the team but they'd be slightly more effective if instead they put more points in a more valuable skill. In DnD you are essentially punished for not picking up every survival skill you can. For every point you spend on basket weaving you lose more valuable skills like spot/listen/sneak/Use Magic Device. That is not good. I whole heartedly believe the best approach is to have that skill available but not make it cost the same thing to get as more valuable skills.It appears to me you have made certain skills more of an emphasis than others. If I were to play in any game you ran, no matter the motif, I would have to make sure certain select skills (that you have made artificially important) would be taken. Those skills (based upon how type III D&D is designed) means class is restricted.
Quote from: MGuy;589247That disappointment is odd but not surprising. It sounds like there're certain expectations you have and anything that runs counter to that disables your ability to extrapolate the results. If the Elf's diplomacy score is so high that it trumps having another dwarf speak to dwarves perhaps that elf has become practiced at speaking with races of different kinds (like a diplomat would be). Perhaps he's even known among dwarven circles. Perhaps he even has the dwarf in the group present and vouching for him.
No. I'm not beholden to the skill modifier.
I make fervent use of backgrounds. You make a character in my game that is, say, a Rogue who lived his whole life in Bigcityville and jibbajibba makes a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds, when you both roll(the same number) for a spot check (in the wilds), jibbajibba's Ranger will see far more than your Rogue will, the same if the place was switched.
The modifier doesn't tell all.
Quote from: MGuy;589247The problem I'm having with people here is that for every argument I make people invent another position for me that involves attacking their playstyle and imagine I'm attacking that, then proceed to defend against an argument I didn't make. Like take this discussion for example. Half the responses assume that I want to get rid of "basket weaving" skills (as in elf's post). You assume I'm talking about games in a vacuum where, in this case, I'm not. There's also been mention of the player's ability to make up for a poorly crafted character that both require the player being allowed by the GM to minimize the character's weaknesses. What's worse people are twisting me pointing out that this is happening at all as an attack on their playstyle. I'd have to say that's my biggest problem with this board; that when you point out "this shit is happening" that must mean I'm saying it is badwrong.
I would say it's more about your peeing in their wheaties. Too many here have no problem talking out both sides of their mouths when it suits their need to be confrontational.
And from my point of view you have made part of the game a vacuum. You let certain skills have greater emphasis over others.
If you could really see where others talk about engaging the setting instead of engaging the rules. Sometimes rules suck when it comes to RPGs.
Quote from: MGuy;589247What I'm saying here is that certain skills (perception) has obvious and valuable uses in any situation. There is almost no game where perception isn't a thing you want to have. There are vanishingly few games where being able to basket weave is something useful, and as stated before a number of those games have to force basket weaving to come up (or in your case it could happen completely at random) or the GM allows basket weaving to do more than weaving baskets. At the same time getting craft: woven baskets directly prevents you from getting skills like perception and there is really is no reason to let that continue at all.
I would hazard an opinion that perception has become a crutch for players/DM to fall back upon when they don't want to interact with the setting. Sorta like a group in my parts who just kill everything first then question the corpses. They get around having to use Sense Motive and Diplomacy for the most part. It's also like the 10' pole thing that drives me batshit crazy. The whole idea of carrying a 10' pole around(do they not realize how bulky a 10' pole is?)
Quote from: MGuy;589247I'm not even sure what you mean. I'm going to have to ask for examples or more details. It is not hard to see which skills are always valuable to have (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Hide, Bluff, Perception, Survival, Disable Device, etc) and which ones have marginal use at best (Knowledge: Nobility, Appraise, Profession, etc). There may be some people that overvalue things like Profession or even GMs that force you to have at least one profession (I've had a GM like that) but in every case those skills are given away as a bonus or have extra abilities attached to them so I'm not kicked in the balls (as hard) for adding flavor to my character.
Lets look at a couple you posted.
Diplomacy: High number trumps everything, look up there at your 'justifications' for the dwarf/elf scenario
Sense Motive: Never encountered the race/creature...doesn't matter I gots a high mod, setting not engaged
Bluff: Never encountered the race/creature...doesn't matter I gots a high mod, setting not engaged
Perception: Never seen a red bellied slipper-slapper before but I can spot them all day long cuz I gots a high mod....
Survival: I grew up in desertville, we teleported to snowville, no worries folks I gots a high mod....
I had always understood "basket-weaving" in RPGs as two parted: Speshul Snowflaking out over the mundane, and contempt for the actual system. Think Jar-Jar Binks, or even Jar-Jar Binks With Normal Voice.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589250I've still never heard of that terminology and I don't see it used there either. Now you're right that D&D in all editions is pretty heavily skewed towards magic, though this is mainly because non magical characters don't have a very wide array of abilities. So even if you can avoid problems such as "combatant who is not relevant in combat" you still can't do anything to influence the plot, or anything useful outside of battle.
That's a D&D problem not a non-magical character problem.
Personally I think D&D suffers from tradition far too much.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589250The second reason is because your opponents are either magical or things that non magic can't really deal with. Sure some big giant is just swinging a greatclub around, but that weapon is twice as big as you are. You have essentially no chance of killing him before he kills you unless you're using a lot of magic (and I don't just mean stat boosting gear, I also mean utility magic items and the like).
All depends on how you play D&D. Yes from the sounds of your style of D&D this is true. Perhaps you can see that not everyone will play D&D the exact same way, even type III D&D.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589250Even at low levels, show me how a non magical person melees down an Ogre. They don't. D&D characters are expected to and often cannot.
Depends on which type of D&D, depends on encounter distance, depends on lots of other factors. Declaring they don;t doesn't seem like you want to actually discuss things just make opifacs(opinions as facts)
Quote from: Mr. GC;589250Now to tie this back into the main subject of the thread, if it were just that certain classes couldn't play D&D, well the game would go on with those that can. And there's quite a few that can, they're just the magical ones. I'd say around half the classes can. And 50% of options making the cut as usable is amazingly good. Normally there's only about 10-20% worth using.
But that isn't all there is to it. The basket weavers not only refuse to play an adventurer that can adventure but try to drag down others as well and try to drag down discussions as well. Neither of which are at all acceptable, and the combination of these two things makes it so that what should be a simple or at most moderately difficult problem to solve instead becomes essentially impossible, all due to a mindset that promotes the antithesis of good play.
Why get all prunefaced by a small outlying group?
Quote from: Sommerjon;589277That's a D&D problem not a non-magical character problem.
Personally I think D&D suffers from tradition far too much.
It's both. Either you only fight stuff that is effectively low level (which is not the same as actually being low level... if higher level means bigger numbers but no dynamic changes that's effectively low level) or you fight things that those that are effectively low level can't deal with. And non casters are always effectively low level.
QuoteAll depends on how you play D&D. Yes from the sounds of your style of D&D this is true. Perhaps you can see that not everyone will play D&D the exact same way, even type III D&D.
No, it's based on the monster manual. You flip through it and you see lots of casters, and lots of things that can't cast spells but are much bigger and stronger than you and that's about it really.
QuoteDepends on which type of D&D, depends on encounter distance, depends on lots of other factors. Declaring they don;t doesn't seem like you want to actually discuss things just make opifacs(opinions as facts)
The encounter difference is "melee", since that's what I actually said. And that in turn comes down to if your numbers or their numbers are bigger. And even here the odds aren't looking so good for you since the Ogre is a clean 2 hit KO on you, whereas you'd have to really try to two hit KO it.
QuoteWhy get all prunefaced by a small outlying group?
If only it were small and outlying, I'd have no problem.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589258Ultimately it doesn't matter how often combat comes up. If it is any number greater than 0, then when combat comes you can either deal with it or you cannot, and if you cannot (including a Fighter that runs and hides when called upon to do his thing) then one way or the other you're getting out of that game. Could be via character death, could be via party booting them...
If it is 0, you're not only playing the worst game imaginable for a conflict less scenario but you're playing one of the worst classes for the same as it isn't as if you can do meaningful things outside of combat (meaningful being beyond what a Commoner could manage).
Well you see here we disagree and its a playstyle thing. Harry Flashman survives for many many books becuase he avoides comabt and is an absolute craven coward. He is none-the-less an interesting character to roleplay.
Also we diverge on what my character can do and what anyone can do. I tend to say from a balance perspective all that matters is what is on the sheet. I agree with that.
But what i can do in any situation is not defiend by what is on the sheet it is defined by the character I am playing.
So if I am playing Harry Flashman say he is a 3rd level fighter with high charisma, reasonable Intelligence very poor wisdom and at best average physical stats. However he has charm, he has connections and he has native cunnign that means when I am playing Harry Flashman a whole host of in game choices open up to me that I don;t have if I am playing Percival. Percival is goign to be much more effective in combat and on paper a far more effective character but there are many many games and scenarios when Flashman will be far more useful to the party than Percival and far more effective. None of these are written on the character sheet.
I don't expect you to understand by the way I am just explaining it to you for completeness.
QuoteThese are not the same thing at all. See, the main threat of an invisible opponent is that you don't know they're there.
See Invisibility allows you to deal with this.
Bags of flour only allow you to deal with it if you know they are there (meaning, already announced themselves as a threat and broke normal invisibility, so we're assuming Improved or Superior here) and know at least approximately where they are (with no detection abilities, good luck with that).
Team See Invis can see the invisible ambush before it actually ambushes them. Flour spammers can at best reveal the attacker (assuming again they have not revealed themselves) after they've already been hit by an ambush, and given that 1: This is D&D. 2: They just got ambushed. 3: Their best answer to invisibility, a basic threat is bags of flour it is very likely half or more of the party just died in the surprise round on account of general weakness.
"I might be visible, but you're dead!"
Sounds like a win for Team Monster to me.
Again here you misunderstand because I am saying they are the same from a meta-game level. The same thought process that means a 1st level Farmboy fighter from hicksvill is carrying waxed string, a bag of lead shot, a 10 foot pole, a bag of flour, a jar of wasps, a blindfold, etc is in play when you are discussing optimised builds.
Both are player skill informing ingame choices as opposed to PC knowledge informing in game choices.
You might argue that your methodology is more sucessful because it gives more notice or becuase it removes the interaction with a DM so you can just roll a dice (it doesn't really because the DM has access to an infinite number of unseen modifers they can legitimately apply but i digress) but its the same process where player skill, skill at optimisation or skill at 'adventuring' trump role play.
Now again this is just a play stule and i can see three competing strands which I think are in all games
i) Player adventuring skill
ii) Player system knowledge
iii) Player desire to roleplay and make desicsions from a character perspective
You are mostly ii the OSR guys are mostly i I am mostly iii.
The difference is most of the OSR guys do iii as well and can do ii if they want but iii stops them goign to extremes.
You do ii and i and iii is relegated so you would never play a simple peasant hero which a set of skills in basket weaving or pottery if a shapeshifted cleric multilimbed archer were a valid character option whereas the OSR and I woudl never play the later because its silly...
Basically I am happy playing Captain America or the Blackwidow whereas you always want to play iron man or thor.....
Quote from: jibbajibba;589297Well you see here we disagree and its a playstyle thing. Harry Flashman survives for many many books becuase he avoides comabt and is an absolute craven coward. He is none-the-less an interesting character to roleplay.
I don't know who this is. I'm assuming some manner of literary character, in which case they're completely irrelevant because the author can just write whatever he wants even if it makes no sense.
D&D also isn't a game about brave Sir Robining for a number of reasons starting with the fact that almost every enemy is capable of outpacing you - run, and you only die tired.
QuoteAlso we diverge on what my character can do and what anyone can do. I tend to say from a balance perspective all that matters is what is on the sheet. I agree with that.
But what i can do in any situation is not defiend by what is on the sheet it is defined by the character I am playing.
So if I am playing Harry Flashman say he is a 3rd level fighter with high charisma, reasonable Intelligence very poor wisdom and at best average physical stats. However he has charm, he has connections and he has native cunnign that means when I am playing Harry Flashman a whole host of in game choices open up to me that I don;t have if I am playing Percival. Percival is goign to be much more effective in combat and on paper a far more effective character but there are many many games and scenarios when Flashman will be far more useful to the party than Percival and far more effective. None of these are written on the character sheet.
And such a character is going to be bad at Bluff, bad at Diplomacy, bad at Sense Motive... you know, bad at having "charm", "connections", and "cunning", much like "creativity" means nothing if you can't follow through. A Fighter that cannot fight cannot follow through.
Meanwhile "Percival" I assume is some sort of knight. Ok, he serves a king, probably does at least a decent job of it... oh wait, is that connections I see?
QuoteAgain here you misunderstand because I am saying they are the same from a meta-game level. The same thought process that means a 1st level Farmboy fighter from hicksvill is carrying waxed string, a bag of lead shot, a 10 foot pole, a bag of flour, a jar of wasps, a blindfold, etc is in play when you are discussing optimised builds.
Actually, that's entirely wrong.
A Spellcraft check of 15 + spell level identifies spells. So if you are level 3, and you have an Int of at least 14 you are automatically aware of every 2nd level spell out there of every class. This includes both "Invisibility" and "See Invisibility". You are explicitly aware of both of these things.
A Fighter, meanwhile would not automatically know how to deal with Invisibility or even that there are things that would cause him to not trust his eyes. So sure, him doing that stuff is metagaming, unless someone tells him (then it's fair game, but still not as effective). But that just makes the whole "See Invis vs flour guy" a lot worse.
QuoteBoth are player skill informing ingame choices as opposed to PC knowledge informing in game choices.
You might argue that your methodology is more sucessful because it gives more notice or becuase it removes the interaction with a DM so you can just roll a dice (it doesn't really because the DM has access to an infinite number of unseen modifers they can legitimately apply but i digress) but its the same process where player skill, skill at optimisation or skill at 'adventuring' trump role play.
Nope. Both because See Invis is something the character can determine independently and without prior experience, and because See Invis is automatic - if it's invisible, and you have line of sight you can see it.
And if you really want to bring roleplay into it... show me one real person that if aware that 1: People and things could become invisible. 2: You can do something to see them anyways. 3: Those things are liable to be trying to kill you. would not opt to utilize whatever methods or tools let them see their unseen assailants. I'm sure they exist, but they're called "insane" or "suicidal".
QuoteNow again this is just a play stule and i can see three competing strands which I think are in all games
i) Player adventuring skill
ii) Player system knowledge
iii) Player desire to roleplay and make desicsions from a character perspective
Here's your problem. You think these factors are in conflict.
QuoteYou are mostly ii the OSR guys are mostly i I am mostly iii.
The difference is most of the OSR guys do iii as well and can do ii if they want but iii stops them goign to extremes.
You do ii and i and iii is relegated so you would never play a simple peasant hero which a set of skills in basket weaving or pottery if a shapeshifted cleric multilimbed archer were a valid character option whereas the OSR and I woudl never play the later because its silly...
Basically I am happy playing Captain America or the Blackwidow whereas you always want to play iron man or thor.....
That still doesn't really explain what these types actually are.
That said, I wouldn't play a damn peasant because I've had enough dying horribly for a while and if for some reason I wanted more I'd go play Dark Souls recklessly.
I also wouldn't play an Arrow Demon Cleric because it's weak and easily countered. Yes, I know there was some long bitch fest a while back about that build. It had +29 to hit at level 13 and was hard countered by Wind Wall like any other archer. Sure it had a high volume of attacks, but it was an archer. Archers have to spam attacks because their attacks are so individually weak, that and there are more anti ranged defenses than almost anything else in the game... I think about the only way you could be easier to shut down is if you were a Rogue.
Ranged mundane just doesn't work in modern D&D, even if speced for it.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589315I don't know who this is. I'm assuming some manner of literary character, in which case they're completely irrelevant because the author can just write whatever he wants even if it makes no sense.
Harry Flashman star of Tom Brown's school days appears in a series of over a dozen novels by Gearge Macdonald Fraser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Paget_Flashman
In my opinion an almost perfectr D&D character.
Like I said not all D&D games are about combat. Ever played a political game? A city game? An investigation? any number of other D&D variants? I have explained to the folks here before how I played a High level wizard game where the main aim was to embarass the host of a dinner party so ...
QuoteD&D also isn't a game about brave Sir Robining for a number of reasons starting with the fact that almost every enemy is capable of outpacing you - run, and you only die tired.
And such a character is going to be bad at Bluff, bad at Diplomacy, bad at Sense Motive... you know, bad at having "charm", "connections", and "cunning", much like "creativity" means nothing if you can't follow through. A Fighter that cannot fight cannot follow through.
Well not everyone you meet is an enemy or wants to kill you. That is a playstyle choice entirely.
Well prior to 3e those skills don't really exist in D&D so ...meh I said he had good Charisma...
As for follow through... in a world of plots and machination its not always the man with a sword that wins sometimes its the man with money to hire the most swords.
QuoteMeanwhile "Percival" I assume is some sort of knight. Ok, he serves a king, probably does at least a decent job of it... oh wait, is that connections I see?
You rember Percival he found the Holy Grail, Wagner wrote an Opera about him, tall guy beard shiny armour? rides a horse? no?
Yes he has connections but his moral code will not allow him to arrange to have the guy that won't give the party the treasure map cornered by 3 thugs who cut his testicles off and threaten to kill his wife and kids unless he gives them the map... Flashman on the other hand had no qualms on this score.
QuoteActually, that's entirely wrong.
A Spellcraft check of 15 + spell level identifies spells. So if you are level 3, and you have an Int of at least 14 you are automatically aware of every 2nd level spell out there of every class. This includes both "Invisibility" and "See Invisibility". You are explicitly aware of both of these things.
A Fighter, meanwhile would not automatically know how to deal with Invisibility or even that there are things that would cause him to not trust his eyes. So sure, him doing that stuff is metagaming, unless someone tells him (then it's fair game, but still not as effective). But that just makes the whole "See Invis vs flour guy" a lot worse.
Nope. Both because See Invis is something the character can determine independently and without prior experience, and because See Invis is automatic - if it's invisible, and you have line of sight you can see it.
And if you really want to bring roleplay into it... show me one real person that if aware that 1: People and things could become invisible. 2: You can do something to see them anyways. 3: Those things are liable to be trying to kill you. would not opt to utilize whatever methods or tools let them see their unseen assailants. I'm sure they exist, but they're called "insane" or "suicidal".
You see here you show you can not even accept that you are engaged in a meta process that observes the game as an outsider. This is actually quite interesting from a psychological perspective.
You reduce a discussion of meta knowledge in a game not actual meta knowlege but a discussion about it so if you will meta-meta-knowledge to a discussion of specific mechanics, mechanics which are just a way for a particular version of a particual game to try and generate some in game logical structure.
Can you see that the discussion of meta-meta-knowledge or of how you approach playing the game is separate and distinct from the actual process of playing the game.
My argument is that 2 sorts of player are using player skill in game and your response is simpley to default o player skill .... i find the inability to discuss the process rather than the detail quite the most interesting thing you have said.
What are your other hobbies? what job do you do? I am just curious.
QuoteHere's your problem. You think these factors are in conflict.
They are most players here won't play an optimised Dart thrower in 2e D&D. Its legal, its tough (some strength boost so hitting for 5 darts at 1d3 +xx damage )
Likewise in a 3x game they don't opt not to play optimised characters because they can't they opt not to play them for roleplay reasons.
they want to play a gristled old fighter. They don't care if the choices they make are sub-optimal so long as its fun and they like the personality of the fighter.
Likewise I find the 10 foot pole method of play annoying becuase I feel that the players are using their skill and knowledge and not making in game deicsions based on their PC's knowledge. You know what a mimic is your PC has no fucking idea unless he already met one. You might be anal and always have your swiss army knife to hand but Wilhelm the Elven rogue is a fly by night kind of bloke, he just does stuff without thinking things through ...etc. etc
QuoteThat still doesn't really explain what these types actually are.
Sorry i thought I had made it reasonably clear.
QuoteThat said, I wouldn't play a damn peasant because I've had enough dying horribly for a while and if for some reason I wanted more I'd go play Dark Souls recklessly.
I also wouldn't play an Arrow Demon Cleric because it's weak and easily countered. Yes, I know there was some long bitch fest a while back about that build. It had +29 to hit at level 13 and was hard countered by Wind Wall like any other archer. Sure it had a high volume of attacks, but it was an archer. Archers have to spam attacks because their attacks are so individually weak, that and there are more anti ranged defenses than almost anything else in the game... I think about the only way you could be easier to shut down is if you were a Rogue.
Ranged mundane just doesn't work in modern D&D, even if speced for it.
you see your arguement for not playing the arrow demon is that its not optimised enough mine is just that its silly and I would rather play the peasant fighter or Harry Flashman.
It's all about playstyle.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589185And yet multiple threads were locked for this reason. Is it the "Thunderdome" type stuff that isn't allowed? I'm actually not being difficult here, I really am trying to find where the line is drawn.
A "thunderdome" type thread (where people test out some kind of debate in actual play) is absolutely allowed; if you have someone wanting to bother to take you up on this.
The mods reserve the right to move it to the design and gameplay forum, where its more appropriate for the subject, unless there's a good reason not to.
The line is drawn basically at threads that de-evolve into a mass of hurled insults with no more content (something that's happened in quite a few threads after 40 or 50 pages worth of debate), or threads that start out as nothing more than an incendiary attack on a specific poster (judged as we call it, or more accurately, as I call it). The main RPG forum is not for personality battles, its to discuss subjects in RPGs; if a thread is nominally about that, it will be allowed, until such time as the thread collapses into pure flames.
Also, I should note that any attempt to intentionally collapse a thread into pure flames or meaningless drivel just because you don't like the thread's subject or how its going is strictly forbidden.
Finally, taking a thread that isn't about some pet subject and trying to forcefully derail the thread into being about that subject is also right out.
I hope that clarifies a bit?
RPGPundit
PS: I want to add that these rules apply to absolutely EVERYONE. Please do NOT think that I'm talking about the "denners" here, I've seen more than enough bullshit coming from both sides.
Quote from: RPGPundit;589328A "thunderdome" type thread (where people test out some kind of debate in actual play) is absolutely allowed; if you have someone wanting to bother to take you up on this.
The mods reserve the right to move it to the design and gameplay forum, where its more appropriate for the subject, unless there's a good reason not to.
The line is drawn basically at threads that de-evolve into a mass of hurled insults with no more content (something that's happened in quite a few threads after 40 or 50 pages worth of debate), or threads that start out as nothing more than an incendiary attack on a specific poster (judged as we call it, or more accurately, as I call it). The main RPG forum is not for personality battles, its to discuss subjects in RPGs; if a thread is nominally about that, it will be allowed, until such time as the thread collapses into pure flames.
Also, I should note that any attempt to intentionally collapse a thread into pure flames or meaningless drivel just because you don't like the thread's subject or how its going is strictly forbidden.
Finally, taking a thread that isn't about some pet subject and trying to forcefully derail the thread into being about that subject is also right out.
I hope that clarifies a bit?
RPGPundit
PS: I want to add that these rules apply to absolutely EVERYONE. Please do NOT think that I'm talking about the "denners" here, I've seen more than enough bullshit coming from both sides.
Ok. That's actually a fair and reasonable response. So really it comes down to whether other people would like to put their money where their mouth is for one of the tests I mentioned or not.
Quote from: jibbajibba;589326Harry Flashman star of Tom Brown's school days appears in a series of over a dozen novels by Gearge Macdonald Fraser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Paget_Flashman
In my opinion an almost perfectr D&D character.
Right, a literary character. I was right then.
QuoteLike I said not all D&D games are about combat. Ever played a political game? A city game? An investigation? any number of other D&D variants? I have explained to the folks here before how I played a High level wizard game where the main aim was to embarass the host of a dinner party so ...
Those things both still involve combat and don't work in D&D.
QuoteWell not everyone you meet is an enemy or wants to kill you. That is a playstyle choice entirely.
Doesn't matter. A number between 0% and 100% are.
QuoteWell prior to 3e those skills don't really exist in D&D so ...meh I said he had good Charisma...
So would you say it was a
player skill then, and not something your character was doing?
QuoteAs for follow through... in a world of plots and machination its not always the man with a sword that wins sometimes its the man with money to hire the most swords.
Money is a factor of WBL which is a factor of killing things... it's safe to say ineffective characters are poor.
Either way, if your character is "hires better characters to do the adventure for him" why aren't they the PCs?
QuoteYou rember Percival he found the Holy Grail, Wagner wrote an Opera about him, tall guy beard shiny armour? rides a horse? no?
Yes he has connections but his moral code will not allow him to arrange to have the guy that won't give the party the treasure map cornered by 3 thugs who cut his testicles off and threaten to kill his wife and kids unless he gives them the map... Flashman on the other hand had no qualms on this score.
No, but since he's buddy buddy with the King I'm sure far more morally agreeable arrangements can be made that still give that party that map... and they don't have to take an otherwise useless character to do it.
QuoteYou see here you show you can not even accept that you are engaged in a meta process that observes the game as an outsider. This is actually quite interesting from a psychological perspective.
You reduce a discussion of meta knowledge in a game not actual meta knowlege but a discussion about it so if you will meta-meta-knowledge to a discussion of specific mechanics, mechanics which are just a way for a particular version of a particual game to try and generate some in game logical structure.
Lolwut. Did you seriously just call being aware of how spells function - something that characters can explicitly do without prior direct experience metagaming?
Let me guess - you're also not allowed to know that you should avoid close combat with most melee brutes even if you wandered into full attack range and got one rounded by them?
QuoteWhat are your other hobbies? what job do you do? I am just curious.
I am a competitive gamer (as if you didn't already know that) and my job rewards a similar talent set (particularly analysis and efficiency assessment).
QuoteThey are most players here won't play an optimised Dart thrower in 2e D&D. Its legal, its tough (some strength boost so hitting for 5 darts at 1d3 +xx damage )
They are not. All you have to do is ask yourself "What kind of person would take on a very dangerous job and not be good at it?" And the answer is "A stupid or insane one." So unless you are roleplaying a stupid or insane character, you should be roleplaying out the sane reaction (either get good at that dangerous job or get away from it).
Would you run into a burning building that contained no one you knew if you were not a trained firefighter? I'd hope the answer is no because whatever your intentions you're just having to make the pros go save more people.
QuoteLikewise in a 3x game they don't opt not to play optimised characters because they can't they opt not to play them for roleplay reasons.
they want to play a gristled old fighter. They don't care if the choices they make are sub-optimal so long as its fun and they like the personality of the fighter.
Well then I guess they have fun dying.
QuoteLikewise I find the 10 foot pole method of play annoying becuase I feel that the players are using their skill and knowledge and not making in game deicsions based on their PC's knowledge. You know what a mimic is your PC has no fucking idea unless he already met one. You might be anal and always have your swiss army knife to hand but Wilhelm the Elven rogue is a fly by night kind of bloke, he just does stuff without thinking things through ...etc. etc
Pole dancing is pretty dumb. I think just the fact I call it pole dancing makes that clear. That said, a Rogue that roleplays playing reckless will soon roleplay being a corpse. And a mimic... assuming you don't make the knowledge check yeah, it will surprise you. Once. Then you'll start checking objects to see if they're actually alive before they grab you and start eating your face.
The whole pole dancing thing is the emergent gameplay of realizing that traps in older editions will wreck your shit and thieves are useless at dealing with them. It only becomes metagaming when you have new adventurers doing it without someone telling them.
QuoteSorry i thought I had made it reasonably clear.
Nope, still haven't explained it. I'm looking for a Type I is this, a Type II is this, a Type III is this... or you can show me where someone else explained this.
Quoteyou see your arguement for not playing the arrow demon is that its not optimised enough mine is just that its silly and I would rather play the peasant fighter or Harry Flashman.
It's all about playstyle.
An adventurer that can't adventure is pretty damn silly. So is the arrow demon, but we're talking about a game in which low level play consists of more rainbow effects being thrown about than a My Little Pony episode. Why? Because Color Spray and Glitterdust are the most effective tactics at that level. If you're an adventurer, if you're going down into holes to kill things and deprive them of their possessions, you've long since abandoned silly concepts like "pride". Ability, however remains practical.
Yeah... this wall of text thing seems to be the obvious result of the recent community request for civility. *sigh* If you see rules only for the loopholes to be exploited, this is what you'd get. I was hoping less terrier-like niggling over minutiae and more explanation of an epithet, but alas there's not enough text to drown it in, methinks.
Quote from: RandallS;589264I've been playing D&D since 1975 and I can think of a good number of cowardly or combat-incompetent characters who who survived for many levels by avoiding direct combat as much as possible. And I've never been in a group of players who booted any character for not being useful enough in combat -- or any other part of the game for that matter. Players have occasionally be booted for being jerks, but never for not playing competent-enough characters. If your games run that way, fine -- but not all games do.
As can I. Characters who can run away and convincingly call for help are quite useful. Even more so when they can assist in general logistics, such as supply-lines, and other out-of-combat support. I've been in games where that's a very valid contribution from non-combat characters. Besides combat isn't the be-all-end-all of our games, and there's too many variables between tables to assure what's the "right build" for combat in all of them. But this works for us, those play groups I've stayed longest.
I have been in other groups that couldn't see the utility in such things. I usually shrugged, created a by-the-book twinked out PC and watch us either ROFLStomp the "lead up opposition" (also known as the XP train) or die outright because of lack of planning (or *snort* "imbalance" or "GM Fiat"). And then the finger pointing blame game would begin of who wasn't optimized to the Nth degree and how the GM cheated them from a character sheet win. I found it a tedious mode of play and soon after such personality flare ups bowed out. But some find this fun and, well, please continue your merry way.
Just don't tell me I don't know how to play. I've been to this fair a good long while and have seen my share of things. Thanks for your concern.
Personality conflicts, that's the entirety of this thread. Personality conflicts at the table with a new name to call each other. And the arguments are so painfully familiar... There ain't much new under the sun, is there?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589336Right, a literary character. I was right then.
Yup congrats you haven't read any books but you have heard of them :)
He is an excellent D&D character model for a certain sort of game.
QuoteThose things both still involve combat and don't work in D&D.
Yes they do, well they don't have to but I have beenplaying games liek that for 30 years so ... sorry if i don't take your word for it ... but its just a playstyle choice.
QuoteDoesn't matter. A number between 0% and 100% are.
So you are saying some times there will be monsters that want to kill you. Yes not sure you will be running though. Depends what you elect to do and where and why right?
QuoteSo would you say it was a player skill then, and not something your character was doing?
Now this is actually an intersting point and the answer is sort of. You need to have the brains and cunning to play Flashman sucessfully but you have to be playing a flashman sort of character to use the brains and cunning in that way. I say Flashman, Cugel the Clever is a very similar character (he is another literary character by the way).
So the personality of the character allows you to use player skills because they are skills the PC would have as well. Its a bit like a biologist playing in a modern espinoage game as a biologist and using his player skill becuase there is a cross over with the PC skill.
QuoteMoney is a factor of WBL which is a factor of killing things... it's safe to say ineffective characters are poor.
Either way, if your character is "hires better characters to do the adventure for him" why aren't they the PCs?
Money is not always a result of killing things no. You can marry the princess, win at the lottery get a job as a basket weaver and corner the decorative basket market .... Don;t think the guys that run IKEA ever killed anyone, although i might be wrong.
And you are hiring specialists for certain tasks nothign wrong with that. from a combat strategy perspective sometimes a longsword is the right weapon sometimes its a crossbow sometimes its a gang of cutthroats and sometimes its the body of little girl in the right bedroom at the right time.
QuoteNo, but since he's buddy buddy with the King I'm sure far more morally agreeable arrangements can be made that still give that party that map... and they don't have to take an otherwise useless character to do it.
except its a quest and you travelled over seas etc etc ... and Flashman is far from useless in the right setting.
QuoteLolwut. Did you seriously just call being aware of how spells function - something that characters can explicitly do without prior direct experience metagaming?
Let me guess - you're also not allowed to know that you should avoid close combat with most melee brutes even if you wandered into full attack range and got one rounded by them?
You see you really can't understand... this conversation is a meta game conversation... we are talking about games and playstyles and choices that is meta-gaming the discussion of playing games.
So the fact that you can't move up the stack from talking specific rules to talking about why people make certain in game choices due to their own desires for what sort of game they want, the discussion of the discussion of gaming if you like, is interesting. You immediately default to a particular interation of a particular game system you are familiar with.
I would guess you are very much concrete-sequential ?
QuoteI am a competitive gamer (as if you didn't already know that) and my job rewards a similar talent set (particularly analysis and efficiency assessment).
I asked for other hobbies or is this it?
Not a collector? I would have thought you would be a collector.
Actuarial? I know a fair few IT guys you have a lot in common with.
QuoteThey are not. All you have to do is ask yourself "What kind of person would take on a very dangerous job and not be good at it?" And the answer is "A stupid or insane one." So unless you are roleplaying a stupid or insane character, you should be roleplaying out the sane reaction (either get good at that dangerous job or get away from it).
Would you run into a burning building that contained no one you knew if you were not a trained firefighter? I'd hope the answer is no because whatever your intentions you're just having to make the pros go save more people.
QuoteWell not all PCs need to be good at their job plenty of folks in real like just muddle through I have met a fair few pretty crap police officers and a lot of very dense soldiers
Again fiction is full of characters who are where they are by luck and circumstance.
As for the building thing. No idea its never happened but I have certainly got into a lot of fights I could have avoided by not worrying what happens to that guy and just calling the police.
QuoteWell then I guess they have fun dying.
on an infinite timeline everybody dies.....
Maybe its just about the journey?
QuotePole dancing is pretty dumb. I think just the fact I call it pole dancing makes that clear. That said, a Rogue that roleplays playing reckless will soon roleplay being a corpse. And a mimic... assuming you don't make the knowledge check yeah, it will surprise you. Once. Then you'll start checking objects to see if they're actually alive before they grab you and start eating your face.
The whole pole dancing thing is the emergent gameplay of realizing that traps in older editions will wreck your shit and thieves are useless at dealing with them. It only becomes metagaming when you have new adventurers doing it without someone telling them.
I thimk the 'pole dancing' thing just emerges because people ask what would I do if I were in this situation. It's not about traps its about the most effective and efficient way to 'win' and in that sense I think it's very similar to optimisation. You say ... If I were a Druid what woudl be the most optimal choices I could take within this rule system to maximise my efficiency and survivability. They say ... if I were an adventurer what would be the optimal choices I could take with in this game world to maximise my efficiency and survivability.
QuoteNope, still haven't explained it. I'm looking for a Type I is this, a Type II is this, a Type III is this... or you can show me where someone else explained this.
Okay ...
maybe tomorrow the wife wants to go to bed.
QuoteAn adventurer that can't adventure is pretty damn silly. So is the arrow demon, but we're talking about a game in which low level play consists of more rainbow effects being thrown about than a My Little Pony episode. Why? Because Color Spray and Glitterdust are the most effective tactics at that level. If you're an adventurer, if you're going down into holes to kill things and deprive them of their possessions, you've long since abandoned silly concepts like "pride". Ability, however remains practical.
See I don't agree that all D&D characters need to be professional adventurers. Certainly wider than D&D that is not the case.
A farmer forced to adventure is a pretty solid trope, as is the oafish noble, the clumsy wizard, the priest who has lost their faith etc etc ... now maybe if they reach 10th level they are a little more proficient but its not a straight line.
So an actual character of mine Seargent Crow
i) rolled weak stats 1 15 and the rest in the average category... I never discard a set of numbers by the way or play a suicide even if the character is reckless they don't realise they are reckless.
ii) 1-3rd level part of a miliraty based game but it was kind of semi play where the DM took each PC through 1-3 in an abstract way still rolls and a few insicents combats and what not but abstracted to major events
ii) started play wasn;t very good. the wizard in the party had no offensive spells the rouge was a coward who hid. We had one mysterious tough PC.
iii) rose to 7th level prior to death.
We never fudge a roll or pull back on tactics and there is a certain degree of player v DM. Crow fought a lot of stuff never shirked bbut his tactics were sound, drawn from his myrmidon kit and the player, he got lucky a lot due to luck and he picked his fights.
By the time he got to 7th level he was tough but I refused to 'optimise' and take magic etc that woudl have made him tougher because the kit he woudl have had to replace was part of his character by that point.
When he died i was pissed off of course but not in a the DM chaeated me way, i was happy with all of that but in a design sense because I felt that the game was too reliant on magical kit to keep up.
From a Roleplay and game experience perspective it was great and I would do it again and not change anything.
Quote from: jibbajibba;589297i) Player adventuring skill
ii) Player system knowledge
iii) Player desire to roleplay and make desicsions from a character perspective
You are mostly ii the OSR guys are mostly i I am mostly iii.
I am mostly i followed by iii -- ii doesn't really even enter into most of the games I play or run because players don't really need any system knowledge to play well in these games -- they can just say what they character is doing in the setting (without needed to know or use any gamespeak) and the GM will tell them what, if anything, they need to roll or do. I realize that WOTC D&D, especially 3.x, highly rewards "rules/system mastery" -- but since I have little interest in requiring players to buy (let alone master) a lot of rules, I don't want to reward rules/system mastery nearly that much and so seldom play WOTC editions of D&D. I'm also not a competitive gamer, at least not in RPGs, as I think the most fun (for me) comes from cooperative play in RPGs.
I realize that for the styles of play that folks like MGuy and Mr. GC seem to like, 3.x is pretty broken. However, I could care less as I play very little 3.x as I do not like it -- the only version of D&D I like less than 3.x is 4e. And when I do play in a 3.x game, I play with people who play it just like it was 1e or 2e so 95% of the major problems that folks like MGuy and Mr GC have with 3.x simply never come up in our play or have been prevented by some relatively simple house rules. 3.x doesn't break any worse than any other RPG in the non-competitive and somewhat casual style of play we use.
Quote from: Sommerjon;589267No. I'm not beholden to the skill modifier.
I make fervent use of backgrounds. You make a character in my game that is, say, a Rogue who lived his whole life in Bigcityville and jibbajibba makes a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds, when you both roll(the same number) for a spot check (in the wilds), jibbajibba's Ranger will see far more than your Rogue will, the same if the place was switched.
The modifier doesn't tell all.
...
I would say it's more about your peeing in their wheaties.
I'd consider this peeing in your player's wheaties. A rogue that lives his whole life in the city but trains to be aware of his surroundings and a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds and trains to be aware of his surroundings might be equally likely to notice something - like someone hiding in ambush.
Now things like the presence or absence of an animal that you'd expect to find (like birds) might not be represented by a Perception type check - it might be Knowledge [nature] or Survival.
But assuming that you're saying 'this situation calls for this type of roll', then I absolutely think you should treat the players equally. If it's DC 15 for one, it should be DC 15 for the other. And if the Ranger misses the check and the Rogue makes it - that's story worthy. You can explain why the Ranger was focused on something else... Etc.
If that's really the way you play, I'd have no interest in ever sitting in on your game (goes nicely with the fact that you have no interest in having me). But I think that type of arbitrariness is the
absolute worst quality that a DM can exhibit. Since you'd expect that they'd have an interest in making the game
fair and apply the rules
consistently, that kind of failure is
unacceptable to me as a player.
That's exactly the type of playstyle that people have referred to as 'sucking the DMs cock'. If the DM likes you, you're more likely to get a 'favorable consideration' for your 'background'.
Sucking the DMs cock (or even having that as a viable strategy to increase your odds of success) is a type of game that bothers me.
You should talk to Ron Edwards et al.
They share your views.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347I'd consider this peeing in your player's wheaties. A rogue that lives his whole life in the city but trains to be aware of his surroundings and a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds and trains to be aware of his surroundings might be equally likely to notice something - like someone hiding in ambush.
Except, of course, that it does not work that way in real life. Such skills generally do not work nearly as well in environments the person is not as familiar with. So, like Sommerjon, in my games, if you are an urban character with little or no experience in the wilderness some of your skills aren't going to be as effective in the wilderness as those of an identical character who has spent most of his life in the wilderness. Setting "realism" trumps the RAW every time in my games.
QuoteIf that's really the way you play, I'd have no interest in ever sitting in on your game (goes nicely with the fact that you have no interest in having me). But I think that type of arbitrariness is the absolute worst quality that a DM can exhibit. Since you'd expect that they'd have an interest in making the game fair and apply the rules consistently, that kind of failure is unacceptable to me as a player.
I would not ask you to play in my games as your desired style of play is much different from the style of play my players and I most enjoy. I would also decline to play in your games for that reason, neither of us would really enjoy playing in the other's campaign due to other major differences in desired style of play.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347That's exactly the type of playstyle that people have referred to as 'sucking the DMs cock'. If the DM likes you, you're more likely to get a 'favorable consideration' for your 'background'.
Sucking the DMs cock (or even having that as a viable strategy to increase your odds of success) is a type of game that bothers me.
having played in games like this, I can say it has nothing to do with whether the GM likes you or sucking up to the GM. A bad Gm might play favorites that way, but a good GM measures these things according to things like the setting and other expectations shared by the group. It isn't so much about ignoring the rules as not being constrained by them when setting and in campaign events demand it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347I'd consider this peeing in your player's wheaties. A rogue that lives his whole life in the city but trains to be aware of his surroundings and a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds and trains to be aware of his surroundings might be equally likely to notice something - like someone hiding in ambush.
Because setting up an ambush in the city is exactly the same as setting up an ambush in the woods. In other words: no, that is a ridiculous claim to make. They are two wildly different scenarios.
QuoteIf that's really the way you play, I'd have no interest in ever sitting in on your game (goes nicely with the fact that you have no interest in having me). But I think that type of arbitrariness is the absolute worst quality that a DM can exhibit. Since you'd expect that they'd have an interest in making the game fair and apply the rules consistently, that kind of failure is unacceptable to me as a player.
You would expect that. Not everyone does, and those people have fun also. Falling back on the rules as ultimate arbiter is one style of play, but not universally desirable or axiomatically the best.
QuoteThat's exactly the type of playstyle that people have referred to as 'sucking the DMs cock'. If the DM likes you, you're more likely to get a 'favorable consideration' for your 'background'.
More like 'games where I can't use the rules to browbeat a win out of the GM'. So, it's magical tea party with numbers. But it's certainly not 'objective' or 'more rigorous', the GM pity is just hidden better.
QuoteSucking the DMs cock (or even having that as a viable strategy to increase your odds of success) is a type of game that bothers me.
See above. That is exactly the kind of game you play now. You just do it with numbers instead of words. Maxing out all your combat skills is absolutely no different than maxing out your social skills. In both cases, the GM is going to present you with challenges commensurate with those scores. Because it is just as trivial for the GM to say 'no' to all your haggling or clever tricks as it is to throw out a monster with 500d10 hit dice, 250AC and immune to all spells and psionics.
What Frank and his group scramble around to avoid admitting is that
it's all magical tea party. Some people have absolutely terrible social/verbal skills in real life, so they hate interacting with the GM. Some people have abysmal math skills, so they avoid combat. In the end, however, every single table is only as good as the GM lets them be. You just don't want to
verbally engage in 'sucking the DMs cock', you want to do it with the numbers on your character sheet instead. But make no mistake, you are currying favour with your GM using your character sheet and a dazzling combination of spells/feats/skills; exactly the same as the person that makes the extensive background.
Yeah, the funniest thing about the MTP crowd is they prefer a game that supposedly relies only on their skill with the game mechanics. Of course that edition also has schedules for how much magic they should get, what monsters they can or cannot encounter, and how many encounters per day. They don't want to man up and play where a party TPK is a real possibility, they don't want to beg the GM to take it easy on them (which is something old school players don't actually do, but I guess these jokers have to, either way, they sure love talking about sucking guys cocks, don't they? Kind of weird.), so they play a game where the rules say he has to take it easy on them. :D
Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347If that's really the way you play, I'd have no interest in ever sitting in on your game (goes nicely with the fact that you have no interest in having me). But I think that type of arbitrariness is the absolute worst quality that a DM can exhibit. Since you'd expect that they'd have an interest in making the game fair and apply the rules consistently, that kind of failure is unacceptable to me as a player.
Yet you are fine with the type of arbitrariness that is 'player mastery of mechanics'?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;589347That's exactly the type of playstyle that people have referred to as 'sucking the DMs cock'. If the DM likes you, you're more likely to get a 'favorable consideration' for your 'background'.
Sucking the DMs cock (or even having that as a viable strategy to increase your odds of success) is a type of game that bothers me.
I fail to see how a DM who likes to add some realism to the game forces players to blow me.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589315A Spellcraft check of 15 + spell level identifies spells. So if you are level 3, and you have an Int of at least 14 you are automatically aware of every 2nd level spell out there of every class. This includes both "Invisibility" and "See Invisibility". You are explicitly aware of both of these things.
This is why I tossed Spellcraft out of 3e
Quote from: Sommerjon;589267It appears to me you have made certain skills more of an emphasis than others. If I were to play in any game you ran, no matter the motif, I would have to make sure certain select skills (that you have made artificially important) would be taken. Those skills (based upon how type III D&D is designed) means class is restricted.
"I" don't need to do anything to "make" a skill have more emphasis nor do I need to do anything "artificial" to promote one skill over another. I am unsure if you did this on purpose but... you seem to have missed what I was saying somehow. Instead of repeating it I'm going to engage you by asking you questions. Hopefully as you think of answers to them you will trip over some answers. Ok here we go.
Which is more likely to be used in most DnD games? Craft: Woven Basket or Perception? Feel free to create as many parameters for various styles of DnD play so that none of the examples you come up mentally are created in a vacuum. When I ask this question to myself it is obvious that Perception comes up the most. In my mindscape perception has a lot more applicable situations than Craft: Woven Basket. If you can think of scenarios where the opposite is true then I am all ears.
QuoteNo. I'm not beholden to the skill modifier.
I make fervent use of backgrounds. You make a character in my game that is, say, a Rogue who lived his whole life in Bigcityville and jibbajibba makes a Ranger who spent his whole life in the wilds, when you both roll(the same number) for a spot check (in the wilds), jibbajibba's Ranger will see far more than your Rogue will, the same if the place was switched.
The modifier doesn't tell all.
So are you saying that my skill check and jibba's skill check (without being beholden to modifiers) somehow arbitrarily achieve different results? How do you explain that to players while keeping yourself unbound by skill modifiers? Do you explain to players that you will arbitrarily (with no warning or explanation) allow people with certain backgrounds to have unseen and unknown modifiers that you are not beholden to to randomly adjust their results based on whether or not you "feel" it is appropriate?
QuoteI would say it's more about your peeing in their wheaties. Too many here have no problem talking out both sides of their mouths when it suits their need to be confrontational.
And from my point of view you have made part of the game a vacuum. You let certain skills have greater emphasis over others.
If you could really see where others talk about engaging the setting instead of engaging the rules. Sometimes rules suck when it comes to RPGs.
What part of the game do you think is made in a vacuum? Is it truly hard to posit that players are more likely to use skills that apply to more situations more often than skills that only apply to a much more narrow set of circumstances? What exactly is it that you have found that I haven't understood about
your argument thus far? Are you sure I haven't already addressed what you think I haven't understood in a previous post?
QuoteI would hazard an opinion that perception has become a crutch for players/DM to fall back upon when they don't want to interact with the setting. Sorta like a group in my parts who just kill everything first then question the corpses. They get around having to use Sense Motive and Diplomacy for the most part. It's also like the 10' pole thing that drives me batshit crazy. The whole idea of carrying a 10' pole around(do they not realize how bulky a 10' pole is?)
How is "perception" a crutch that prevents interaction with the setting? Do you not think that the things you write down on your character sheet are things your character (and by that extension you) actually use to interact with the setting? How is Perception a crutch yet Diplomacy/Sense Motive are not?
QuoteLets look at a couple you posted.
Diplomacy: High number trumps everything, look up there at your 'justifications' for the dwarf/elf scenario
Sense Motive: Never encountered the race/creature...doesn't matter I gots a high mod, setting not engaged
Bluff: Never encountered the race/creature...doesn't matter I gots a high mod, setting not engaged
Perception: Never seen a red bellied slipper-slapper before but I can spot them all day long cuz I gots a high mod....
Survival: I grew up in desertville, we teleported to snowville, no worries folks I gots a high mod....
This I can't address with questions so I'll break this one down into pieces:
Diplomacy - First off, I don't like how Diplomacy currently works so with that out the way. With that some people are just Charismatic enough to fit in anywhere. Perhaps in talking to so many people (in the adventures that got your stat mod so high) you've picked up a thing or two about dwarves (especially since one is in your party). If you don't like that then you should house rule "familiarity" modifiers into the game.
Sense Motive - No reason you can't use your intuition to know bullshit when you hear it. Since people are culturally connected enough to know each other's languages there really isn't a reason you can't pick up on certain tones, logic strings, wordage, that hint you off to a lie or two.
Bluff - Same thing as sense motive except in reverse. You know how to at least make yourself convincing when you say something or you know how to word shit right. There's no reason you need to particularly know about dwarves to know how to tell a lie. You're not the same race as them so all you have to do is appear to look like your race telling the truth.
In all these situations you also have a dwarf (apparently) in your party so I don't know how you couldn't get some experience in dealing with dwarves from having the dwarf (that you mentioned in the post leading up to this one) in the party.
Perception - When I was a kid I didn't know the name or what a lot of stuff was. That never prevented me from seeing it.I think you wanted to say that not seeing an SS before should stop me from
identifying it and that is reasonable and not in any way covered by the rules.
Survival - It gets really fucking cold in the desert so you'd at least have some experience protecting yourself from the cold. Also, perhaps, you have heard of colder climes in your adventures that you went on to get that high survival mod and perhaps know a thing or two about how to adapt (especially if you're at the level where you're teleporting willy nilly with your buds).
These are all just off the top of my head. Given more context (instead of the vacuum here) I probably could delve deeper into the whys and hows but I think you get my drift.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589351having played in games like this, I can say it has nothing to do with whether the GM likes you or sucking up to the GM. A bad Gm might play favorites that way, but a good GM measures these things according to things like the setting and other expectations shared by the group. It isn't so much about ignoring the rules as not being constrained by them when setting and in campaign events demand it.
As I said before "if" you are going to change the rules it should be done
BEFORE the game begins and you should let all your players know that the rules have changed. To not do so and then expect them to read your mind or make in character decisions based on what you may or may not think is appropriate is being a bad GM. If you want your players to truly engage in the setting then they should know how the world's physics work or at least have some idea if they don't know how things should work then they know less then their characters do and that breaks any immersion you could hope to have as you have to zoom out and explain shit to the players that they should already know. If you have to keep telling them "no you get a +4 situation mod all of a sudden because I think your farming background should count here" or "you get a -4 to attack because you've never killed a man(you got the farmhand background) before and are hesitant to do so" that kills the mood. That's shit a player should know going into the game.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589363Yeah, the funniest thing about the MTP crowd is they prefer a game that supposedly relies only on their skill with the game mechanics. Of course that edition also has schedules for how much magic they should get, what monsters they can or cannot encounter, and how many encounters per day. They don't want to man up and play where a party TPK is a real possibility, they don't want to beg the GM to take it easy on them (which is something old school players don't actually do, but I guess these jokers have to, either way, they sure love talking about sucking guys cocks, don't they? Kind of weird.), so they play a game where the rules say he has to take it easy on them. :D
You say that in a thread where half the posts are telling you to your face that the GM is expecting players to conform to their way of thinking in order to "play smart and live"? You have GOT to be being dishonest with yourself if you believe that to be an accurate breakdown about what's going on here.
Quote from: Sommerjon;589381Yet you are fine with the type of arbitrariness that is 'player mastery of mechanics'?
How is knowing the rules of the game and abiding by them for profit arbitrary?
QuoteI fail to see how a DM who likes to add some realism to the game forces players to blow me.
Because what is realistic to one person is not realistic to another. Since we are all playing an imaginary game that is purposefully not realistic you have to rely on the rules to determine what does/doesn't happen in the game. If the GM then overrides the rules to adjust the setting to his/her imagined reality you are then forced to understand the way the GM is thinking in order to succeed.
Quote from: Sommerjon;589382This is why I tossed Spellcraft out of 3e
Because you hate the idea that people who study (and have ways of reading, seeing, understanding) magic might be able to tell what magic is being used right in front of their face?
Quote from: MGuy;589386How is knowing the rules of the game and abiding by them for profit arbitrary?
Because your making the rules paramount.
Not everyone wants to spend the amount of time it takes to master all of the little nuances that come with type III D&D?
Because not everyone
has to have every possible benefit they can choke out of a system?
Quote from: MGuy;589386Because what is realistic to one person is not realistic to another. Since we are all playing an imaginary game that is purposefully not realistic you have to rely on the rules to determine what does/doesn't happen in the game. If the GM then overrides the rules to adjust the setting to his/her imagined reality you are then forced to understand the way the GM is thinking in order to succeed.
And type III D&D rules are flawed.
Easy point to make set DCs in a system with stacking modifiers? Really what were they thinking.
And Yes I'll take my experiences of reality over most others. I understand the fundamental differences of 'spotting' in an urban vs natural enviroment. They do not equate. You have to have experience in both to have the same chances. What you look for in either setting is different for either setting. Not having these differences is a system issue that I am more than happy to correct.
Quote from: MGuy;589386Because you hate the idea that people who study (and have ways of reading, seeing, understanding) magic might be able to tell what magic is being used right in front of their face?
No study only goes so far. A first level character with a lucky die roll can identify a ninth level spell, a spell he most likely has never seen cast, but because the way the skill works knows all about it. Or how do you differentiate between spells that have similar effects on something after the fact?
Quote from: MGuy;589386You say that in a thread where half the posts are telling you to your face that the GM is expecting players to conform to their way of thinking in order to "play smart and live"? You have GOT to be being dishonest with yourself if you believe that to be an accurate breakdown about what's going on here.
Didn't like that? If you want to actually have a serious conversation, try not to start out by misrepresenting what the other side actually is trying to tell you.
Yes, AD&D is deadly. Yes, despite playing like a genius, you may actually get hit for enough HPs to drop you. However, does that mean tactics don't matter? Of course not. Tactics matter. Forget the old "sack of flour and a 10' pole" Indiana Jones crap, simple things make a huge difference, like fighters in front, like humans with spears fighting behind dwarves, like thieves and rangers scouting ahead, like a hundred different things players all over the world did every weekend since before you were born. Not because they keyed in to the GM's way of thinking, but because things work that way in our world, so it makes sense it works in others.
Stop parroting talking points like "game the GM or game the system" and think. "Rulings not Rules" doesn't mean in my campaign water flows uphill and light doesn't cast shadows and you have to come to terms with my ridiculous set of house rules in order to function. Yeah, there's the terms Dungeon Master and Game Master, there's also the term referee in the original books because that's what the DM was. Yeah some referee's sucked, I'd like to find the guy that DM'd Ron Edwards and punch him in the sack for all the grief his bullshit games caused us.
You don't want a living breathing world where if you travel the mountains you might run into a giant, dragon or the Tarrasque. You want an arena where you can tactically play the encounter. You want a tactical roleplaying boardgame, and you have one. Good for you. Stop trying to pretend that's what anyone else wants or that your choice is somehow better. And for the love of god, stop pretending that a DM in chains to the 3.5 CR system, encounter system, and treasure system is running any less of a "Magical Tea Party".
Quote from: MGuy;589386As I said before "if" you are going to change the rules it should be done BEFORE the game begins and you should let all your players know that the rules have changed. To not do so and then expect them to read your mind or make in character decisions based on what you may or may not think is appropriate is being a bad GM. If you want your players to truly engage in the setting then they should know how the world's physics work or at least have some idea if they don't know how things should work then they know less then their characters do and that breaks any immersion you could hope to have as you have to zoom out and explain shit to the players that they should already know. If you have to keep telling them "no you get a +4 situation mod all of a sudden because I think your farming background should count here" or "you get a -4 to attack because you've never killed a man(you got the farmhand background) before and are hesitant to do so" that kills the mood. That's shit a player should know going into the game.
Hey McGuy. Like I said, of this is your preference, there is nothing wrong with it. But what I am talking about is whether a group acceptsthe mechanics a the sole determination of "setting physics" or whether the group expects the GM to adjuicate mechanics so their results comform better to his and their understanding of the setting physics. Personally i don't like the GM changing stuff "just because" but if there is a good reason to ignore RAW because it produces better supports hissense of the setting, i have no problem with it. I suppose if you are relying soley on mechanicsto inform your sense of setting physics, this could be jarring, but if you rely on setting, game events and common sense to determine "setting physics" it isn't much of a problem. Rules are good. I like GMs to be somewhat consistent in their application but rigid adherence to RAW, in my opinion, can actually break immersion if rules occassionally make you scratch your head (even f they work great 95% of the time).
Again, this is preference. If you want the rules to be followed to the letter, that isn't wrong. But neither are more relaxed approaches.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589390Didn't like that? If you want to actually have a serious conversation, try not to start out by misrepresenting what the other side actually is trying to tell you.
Yes, AD&D is deadly. Yes, despite playing like a genius, you may actually get hit for enough HPs to drop you. However, does that mean tactics don't matter? Of course not. Tactics matter. Forget the old "sack of flour and a 10' pole" Indiana Jones crap, simple things make a huge difference, like fighters in front, like humans with spears fighting behind dwarves, like thieves and rangers scouting ahead, like a hundred different things players all over the world did every weekend since before you were born. Not because they keyed in to the GM's way of thinking, but because things work that way in our world, so it makes sense it works in others.
Stop parroting talking points like "game the GM or game the system" and think. "Rulings not Rules" doesn't mean in my campaign water flows uphill and light doesn't cast shadows and you have to come to terms with my ridiculous set of house rules in order to function. Yeah, there's the terms Dungeon Master and Game Master, there's also the term referee in the original books because that's what the DM was. Yeah some referee's sucked, I'd like to find the guy that DM'd Ron Edwards and punch him in the sack for all the grief his bullshit games caused us.
You don't want a living breathing world where if you travel the mountains you might run into a giant, dragon or the Tarrasque. You want an arena where you can tactically play the encounter. You want a tactical roleplaying boardgame, and you have one. Good for you. Stop trying to pretend that's what anyone else wants or that your choice is somehow better. And for the love of god, stop pretending that a DM in chains to the 3.5 CR system, encounter system, and treasure system is running any less of a "Magical Tea Party".
Good tactics = suicidal tactics. Um yeah.
Quote from: jibbajibba;589345Yup congrats you haven't read any books but you have heard of them :)
He is an excellent D&D character model for a certain sort of game.
All literacy characters are terrible D&D characters, because without the plot making them invulnerable they will die horribly and fast.
QuoteSo you are saying some times there will be monsters that want to kill you. Yes not sure you will be running though. Depends what you elect to do and where and why right?
Because there are enemies trying to kill you, any related problems (such as being unable to kill them, or to run from them) will also come up.
QuoteNow this is actually an intersting point and the answer is sort of. You need to have the brains and cunning to play Flashman sucessfully but you have to be playing a flashman sort of character to use the brains and cunning in that way. I say Flashman, Cugel the Clever is a very similar character (he is another literary character by the way).
So the personality of the character allows you to use player skills because they are skills the PC would have as well. Its a bit like a biologist playing in a modern espinoage game as a biologist and using his player skill becuase there is a cross over with the PC skill.
I'm a black belt, I always win combats*.
* - Not really.
QuoteMoney is not always a result of killing things no. You can marry the princess, win at the lottery get a job as a basket weaver and corner the decorative basket market .... Don;t think the guys that run IKEA ever killed anyone, although i might be wrong.
What princesses (and all royalty need) are strong people to protect them and their holdings. They don't really need much else, and a gimpy character most certainly does not qualify. All those other things earn you a pittance, so lolno.
QuoteAnd you are hiring specialists for certain tasks nothign wrong with that. from a combat strategy perspective sometimes a longsword is the right weapon sometimes its a crossbow sometimes its a gang of cutthroats and sometimes its the body of little girl in the right bedroom at the right time.
Except for the part where you're the PC, so if you need to outsource to all these other guys why aren't they in the party?
QuoteYou see you really can't understand... this conversation is a meta game conversation... we are talking about games and playstyles and choices that is meta-gaming the discussion of playing games.
So the fact that you can't move up the stack from talking specific rules to talking about why people make certain in game choices due to their own desires for what sort of game they want, the discussion of the discussion of gaming if you like, is interesting. You immediately default to a particular interation of a particular game system you are familiar with.
I would guess you are very much concrete-sequential ?
I asked for other hobbies or is this it?
Not a collector? I would have thought you would be a collector.
Actuarial? I know a fair few IT guys you have a lot in common with.
What the hell are you even talking about?
QuoteWell not all PCs need to be good at their job plenty of folks in real like just muddle through I have met a fair few pretty crap police officers and a lot of very dense soldiers
Again fiction is full of characters who are where they are by luck and circumstance.
As for the building thing. No idea its never happened but I have certainly got into a lot of fights I could have avoided by not worrying what happens to that guy and just calling the police.
And even being a police officer isn't that dangerous. Sure you get the occasional armed and dangerous guy who might kill you but mostly it's just routine safe stuff. An adventurer... not so much.
So what is your point? You've done a lot of stupid things that somewhat inconvenienced you, so your characters should do a lot of stupid things that fucking kill them?
Quoteon an infinite timeline everybody dies.....
Maybe its just about the journey?
A 5 minute trip to hell. Enjoy.
QuoteI thimk the 'pole dancing' thing just emerges because people ask what would I do if I were in this situation. It's not about traps its about the most effective and efficient way to 'win' and in that sense I think it's very similar to optimisation. You say ... If I were a Druid what woudl be the most optimal choices I could take within this rule system to maximise my efficiency and survivability. They say ... if I were an adventurer what would be the optimal choices I could take with in this game world to maximise my efficiency and survivability.
So if I put you in a situation where you might die, are you seriously trying to tell me you would not make what you considered to be the best choices to 1: Live. 2: Show that bastard Mr. GC what for? Are you seriously telling me you'd "roleplay" out dying a death you could avoid?
QuoteSee I don't agree that all D&D characters need to be professional adventurers. Certainly wider than D&D that is not the case.
A farmer forced to adventure is a pretty solid trope, as is the oafish noble, the clumsy wizard, the priest who has lost their faith etc etc ... now maybe if they reach 10th level they are a little more proficient but its not a straight line.
If such a character made it past the random levels they damn well better have a clue.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589412And even being a police officer isn't that dangerous. Sure you get the occasional armed and dangerous guy who might kill you but mostly it's just routine safe stuff. An adventurer... not so much.
.
It is the routine stuff, like driving fast to emergencies, that are often the most dangerous for cops.
Police officer makes number nine on this list of most dangerous occuaptions (based on fatalities per 100,000): http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-2011-9?op=1. I usually see it on such lists.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589414It is the routine stuff, like driving fast to emergencies, that are often the most dangerous for cops.
Police officer makes number nine on this list of most dangerous occuaptions (based on fatalities per 100,000): http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-2011-9?op=1. I usually see it on such lists.
Would you say that driving fast is an example of doing their job recklessly?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589415Would you say that driving fast is an example of doing their job recklessly?
I am just correcting your statement that it isn't a dangerous occupation. Otherwise not really following the discussion you and Jibba are having.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589417I am just correcting your statement that it isn't a dangerous occupation. Otherwise not really following the discussion you and Jibba are having.
My statement was clearly relative. Aka compared to adventuring, being a cop is pretty safe. Compared to anything in the real world, adventuring is dangerous.
Even active war zones are relatively tame by comparison.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589421My statement was clearly relative. Aka compared to adventuring, being a cop is pretty safe. Compared to anything in the real world, adventuring is dangerous.
Even active war zones are relatively tame by comparison.
Perhaps your style of adventuring is that way. I would hazard a guess that you have very little down time between 'adventures'. I do kinda question how dangerous you style of adventuring is if you group makes such effective groups. How dangerous can it really be? Unless you 'power level'? Routinely go against things 3+CRs over you?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589421My statement was clearly relative. Aka compared to adventuring, being a cop is pretty safe. Compared to anything in the real world, adventuring is dangerous.
Even active war zones are relatively tame by comparison.
As Sommerjon says, it depends on the game (not to mention the warzone). If you are just talking dungeon crawl D&D, yeah, it can be pretty darn dangerous. If you are talking a lot of other games, much less so. I even run games where the players are FBI agents, so the level of danger is pretty comparable to a cop.
Also, even though the players in D&D are facing dangers most people never encounter in real life, because of how the mechanics and HP work, these are greatly nerfed once you get out of lower levels. I imagine player characters have a much higher survivabiliy rate for the activiities they engage in than if they were real people (even with a bunch of spells and magic items, I am guessing I wouldn't fair as well as a D&D character against a lich or dragon).
Quote from: Sommerjon;589422Perhaps your style of adventuring is that way. I would hazard a guess that you have very little down time between 'adventures'. I do kinda question how dangerous you style of adventuring is if you group makes such effective groups. How dangerous can it really be? Unless you 'power level'? Routinely go against things 3+CRs over you?
Show me in the real world where people come into conflict with fiendish super geniuses. I'll wait.
Since no actual person has to deal with that, but D&D characters seriously are expected to deal with such things as "Erinyes" even at mid levels and it isn't even a big deal it's safe to say their lives are more dangerous.
The amount of downtime between adventures doesn't matter, what matters is that when it is go time, it's do or die time (that and if there WERE a lot of downtime, things get immensely easier when it is no longer downtime).
Even with effective parties, adventuring is quite dangerous. You still see at least 1-2 deaths per level even when doing everything right. It's when you stop doing that things get truly lethal... then you start encountering scenarios in which a typical adventuring day consists of the party hitting a single routine encounter and having a literal 98% chance to all die on that encounter... and that's before considering the other three beyond that. Something you're supposed to do with no effort or thought, ends up essentially impossible.
Also, every fight that matters is at least 3 levels higher. Either because it's the boss, or a lot of encounters at once, or whatever. If you can't deal with the fights that matter, then the rest doesn't matter and you don't matter either. And before you start - statement of fact, not insult.
Brendan: Because of how HP works means that if you're fighting a dragon, you're likely to go from full to dead in one round. Regardless of if you're a D&D character or a real person somehow in the D&D world. So... no change there. A Lich is basically a spellcaster, so if they're worried about your HP they're doing it wrong.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589426Brendan: Because of how HP works means that if you're fighting a dragon, you're likely to go from full to dead in one round. Regardless of if you're a D&D character or a real person somehow in the D&D world. So... no change there. A Lich is basically a spellcaster, so if they're worried about your HP they're doing it wrong.
That depends on the dragon, edition, and you character level/class. But it is somewhat beside the point. The point is D&D is artificially less lethal than real life once you get out of the low HP zone.
In real life a stab wound can kill you in one blow, in D&D that is highly unlikely at higher levels. The HP system in D&D is exceptionally unrealistic and it protects characters from death. It is the unrealistic Hp and damage system that constant makes adventuring possible in D&D. The moment you implement a more realistic damage system without Hp that go up with level/xp, players suddenly stop being so bold.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589427That depends on the dragon, edition, and you character level/class. But it is somewhat beside the point. The point is D&D is artificially less lethal than real life once you get out of the low HP zone.
In real life a stab wound can kill you in one blow, in D&D that is highly unlikely at higher levels. The HP system in D&D is exceptionally unrealistic and it protects characters from death. It is the unrealistic Hp and damage system that constant makes adventuring possible in D&D. The moment you implement a more realistic damage system without Hp that go up with level/xp, players suddenly stop being so bold.
Older editions: Dragon breath is a OHKO.
Newer ones: Full attack is a one rounder.
The how changes, the what does not.
At higher levels one attack might not kill you but enemies also don't only get only one attack.
So you have people dying anywhere from semi often to constantly. And if you did add a "realistic" damage system? Enemies look at you, and you die.
Quote from: MGuy;588972Pfffffffff. I've already gone over this but here we go again.
1) Fighter. Just by the name you know that a fighter is for fighting. If it wasn't you would have a different name that would suggest a wider range of uses but since the fighter's claim to fame is how well it fights then reasonably when comparing two different fighters (all other things being equal including outside factors like "player skill") then you go through the numbers to see how well it fights.
2) Anything that is not on your character sheet is not something intrinsic to the fighter. Seriously there is no difference between being a "fighter" and being a "thief" other than what you put on your character sheet. It is the numbers and abilities that are present on your character sheet and in the rule book that keeps your characters different. Putting the relevant numbers on your character sheet is the only thing that makes you put "fighter" on your character sheet instead of "Wizard" when you want to be a swordsman.
3)When making a comparison between "characters" mentioning what the "player" can or can't do is merely a distraction. If you give the same guy the same character but one character's stats is better than the other character's stats then obviously the guy will do better with the character with better stats. That is so obvious that I'm surprised I'd have to mention it.
4) Now your response to 3 may be that you play in such a way that renders differences between stats for characters insignificant. If you're doing that then there really is no reason to even make stats for a character because you are just going to make them meaningless anyway and if you're going to do that I don't really understand why you would bother using stats at all.
As usual I think people are talking past each other.
a)A character can do a whole lot before accounting for exceptional abilities.
b)Plus the exceptional abilities granted by their class.
Critiquing the relative value of classes (esp. in a game where you pick your class) can be valid, but the counterpoint is that characters can interact with the larger game pretty significantly prior to accounting for mechanical features. How significantly you can interact with the world prior to accounting for mechanical features varies game to game, adventure to adventure, and setting to setting. The OSR, besides its focus on old editions, is all about adventures and settings built for play. You can see why it would be a sore spot to say that classes were barred from participation in that sort of content.
In response to 4) I'm sensing a false dichotomy. Firstly, when a niche is defined by scaled values (such as stats) instead of binaries (feats, class features, spells) the activity is something every class can participate in *and* the class abilities are relevant enough to use.
Sorry for the late response. Rough week.
Quote from: MGuy;589247The problem I'm having with people here is that for every argument I make people invent another position for me that involves attacking their playstyle and imagine I'm attacking that, then proceed to defend against an argument I didn't make. Like take this discussion for example. Half the responses assume that I want to get rid of "basket weaving" skills (as in elf's post). You assume I'm talking about games in a vacuum where, in this case, I'm not. There's also been mention of the player's ability to make up for a poorly crafted character that both require the player being allowed by the GM to minimize the character's weaknesses. What's worse people are twisting me pointing out that this is happening at all as an attack on their playstyle. I'd have to say that's my biggest problem with this board; that when you point out "this shit is happening" that must mean I'm saying it is badwrong.
Site hasn't always been like that. I think they're just agitated. See the response to Six Fixes earlier.
But also the larger argument (the one from the past several months, and with posters who weren't all you, whether it's fair to let that bleed in or not) had to do with things like relevance and whether a character could contribute.
In this thread, there's the (perceived) idea that certain skills are objectively less relevant. Even if you acknowledge that which skills are relevant vary game to game, you're at least going to have to clarify your position a few dozen times before people get the "maybe you should reduce or void the cost of irrelevant skills" bit as what it is.
As for the argument about contribution, see my response to the last post (and the post itself). Maybe you can see how people would imagine you're conflating character and class, and unique contribution with general contribution. Again, one of the necessary inconveniences of arguing with people who aren't starting from the same premises is constant clarification.
________________________________
Lastly, I should probably add that when people are questioning why some skills are more/less relevant than others, they're also coming from a model where people choose what they do based on what they're good at rather than having to choose what they're good at based on what they end up doing. Taking the rails off is huge when it comes to making skills more balanced in relevance for this reason.
Note that I prefer using both methods (choosing tasks based on competencies and competencies based on tasks).
I find discussing skills in any form to be pointless as there's almost nothing meaningful you can do with them. They are at best a separate resource pool, and as long as you don't go crossing them up (by say, wasting a feat on a Skill Focus) there isn't really any messing them up, nor is there really any getting them right. Aside from those few that actually do something like Tumble and UMD all your skills might as well be literal basket weaving for all the impact they have upon the game.
And so I focus on the evolved definition of the phrase instead.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589430Older editions: Dragon breath is a OHKO.
Newer ones: Full attack is a one rounder.
The how changes, the what does not.
At higher levels one attack might not kill you but enemies also don't only get only one attack.
So you have people dying anywhere from semi often to constantly. And if you did add a "realistic" damage system? Enemies look at you, and you die.
The point is HP are not realistic and D&D adventurers don't behave as real people would because of this. A lot of creatures have only one attack. An orc swinging a sword gets one attack. This ought to be able to kill a person in one blow in real life. But in D&D it can't once you get a certain amount of HP. When you have HP that can get into the double and triple digits, and supposedly lethal attacks that can only do 1-8 or 1-10 damage, no matter how you slice it, that is a nerfed version of reality.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589441I find discussing skills in any form to be pointless as there's almost nothing meaningful you can do with them. They are at best a separate resource pool, and as long as you don't go crossing them up (by say, wasting a feat on a Skill Focus) there isn't really any messing them up, nor is there really any getting them right. Aside from those few that actually do something like Tumble and UMD all your skills might as well be literal basket weaving for all the impact they have upon the game.
And so I focus on the evolved definition of the phrase instead.
Or is it based around the idea that spells replicate skills?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589444The point is HP are not realistic and D&D adventurers don't behave as real people would because of this. A lot of creatures have only one attack. An orc swinging a sword gets one attack. This ought to be able to kill a person in one blow in real life. But in D&D it can't once you get a certain amount of HP. When you have HP that can get into the double and triple digits, and supposedly lethal attacks that can only do 1-8 or 1-10 damage, no matter how you slice it, that is a nerfed version of reality.
Level 5 is about the highest level you only see one attack. So at that level you have a standard party running HP in the range of 24-42.
Even level one enemies don't do 1-8 or 1-10 damage only unless they're not meant to fight.
Even well designed level 2s can do 26-48. And if you're just looking at normal enemies, two Ogres do 14-42 between them. So yeah.
Anyways, what's your point? That there should be even more random death, particularly on the already weak classes? That the already weak classes especially should be constrained by reality (read: suck horribly in D&D)?
I don't think those or the other things you could mean really help you much.
Quote from: Sommerjon;589445Or is it based around the idea that spells replicate skills?
No, because the skills suck in a vacuum.
If you want to argue that HP are realistic be my guest, but 3E isnt the only edition of D&D. It is quite possible to face a foe with one attack after fifth level (multi attacks for classed characters belong to fighters for exampe in 2E and many monsters only get one attack with a weapon---andeven with more attacks many still cant drop a high hp character). Even if higher HD creatures always did get more attacks, it remains that when a 60 hp fighter squares of with an orc holding a sword, that orc cannot kill the fighter in one blow (orcs don't dissapear just because you are higher level). It is simply impossible given the hp system.
The point isn't that d&d should be more lethal, only that its lethality is greatly nerfed. Otherwise no one would go adventuring like they do in D&D. If you ever run a genuinely gritty system you see a big difference in how players conduct themselves. Generally the difference they avoid fighting whenever possible. Which is related to my previous point about rpg adventures encompassing a lot more than dungeon crawls and frequent combat. So my point is much of what you are saying, only really applies to D&D and not to a lot of other games (and even then i don't think your arguments are all that persuasive.
Quote from: Sommerjon;589389Because your making the rules paramount.
Not everyone wants to spend the amount of time it takes to master all of the little nuances that come with type III D&D?
Because not everyone has to have every possible benefit they can choke out of a system?
1) So following the rules is making the rules paramount and thus following the rules is... bad for some reason?
2) Why would you have to work out every nuance in the rules just to know what the rules are?
3) Who said someone had to have every possible benefit?
You see this entire response has nothing to do with how following the rules is arbitrary. This is you believing I'm saying something about min maxxing and then defending against that. What I actually asked you is how following the rules is arbitrary and it seems you don't have an answer to that question.
QuoteAnd type III D&D rules are flawed.
Easy point to make set DCs in a system with stacking modifiers? Really what were they thinking.
And Yes I'll take my experiences of reality over most others. I understand the fundamental differences of 'spotting' in an urban vs natural enviroment. They do not equate. You have to have experience in both to have the same chances. What you look for in either setting is different for either setting. Not having these differences is a system issue that I am more than happy to correct.
Thus you can see why people say you're sucking the DM's cock in order to get ahead. You just laid out 2 things. You do not care about how other people see things and your experiences trump other people's expectations and the rules. Now making house rules has never been something I've been against but the changes you make should be the fucking rules and not something you pul out of your ass when it is convenient.
QuoteNo study only goes so far. A first level character with a lucky die roll can identify a ninth level spell, a spell he most likely has never seen cast, but because the way the skill works knows all about it. Or how do you differentiate between spells that have similar effects on something after the fact?
There's no reason a learned 1st level character who studies magic couldn't have read about a spell they don't know/haven't seen. I've read plenty of books about shit I've never experienced before. Again, this is an example of you meeting something that doesn't conform to your world view and you instantly cut off the part of your brain that would allow you to rationalize the situation. Magic is something that doesn't exist so who knows what intricacies someone learning magic may or may not pick up when studying it.It can't be known because it doesn't exist in our reality. The only way we can know how the imagined reality works at all (or be given any hint) is through the rules which represent the world's physics engine.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589390Didn't like that? If you want to actually have a serious conversation, try not to start out by misrepresenting what the other side actually is trying to tell you.
Its not whether I liked it or not. Your statement lacked any actual reflection on the conversation. I was just pointing it out. Whether or not you decide to learn from what I said is your choice.
QuoteYes, AD&D is deadly. Yes, despite playing like a genius, you may actually get hit for enough HPs to drop you. However, does that mean tactics don't matter? Of course not. Tactics matter. Forget the old "sack of flour and a 10' pole" Indiana Jones crap, simple things make a huge difference, like fighters in front, like humans with spears fighting behind dwarves, like thieves and rangers scouting ahead, like a hundred different things players all over the world did every weekend since before you were born. Not because they keyed in to the GM's way of thinking, but because things work that way in our world, so it makes sense it works in others.
None of this has anything to do with what I've been talking about in this thread. It sounds like you're on a rant. If you're still addressing me as if I'm GC you might as well stop. I haven't been keeping up with what he's been saying as I just gloss over his posts the same way I do other people with apparently nothing of value to say.
QuoteStop parroting talking points like "game the GM or game the system" and think. "Rulings not Rules" doesn't mean in my campaign water flows uphill and light doesn't cast shadows and you have to come to terms with my ridiculous set of house rules in order to function. Yeah, there's the terms Dungeon Master and Game Master, there's also the term referee in the original books because that's what the DM was. Yeah some referee's sucked, I'd like to find the guy that DM'd Ron Edwards and punch him in the sack for all the grief his bullshit games caused us.
You don't want a living breathing world where if you travel the mountains you might run into a giant, dragon or the Tarrasque. You want an arena where you can tactically play the encounter. You want a tactical roleplaying boardgame, and you have one. Good for you. Stop trying to pretend that's what anyone else wants or that your choice is somehow better. And for the love of god, stop pretending that a DM in chains to the 3.5 CR system, encounter system, and treasure system is running any less of a "Magical Tea Party".
Indeed you are just ranting. Apparently carrying stuff from over several threads. All this tells me in a nutshell is that you believe me to be someone attacking your style and telling you what to do. Congrats on continuing to not understand my position.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589411Hey McGuy. Like I said, of this is your preference, there is nothing wrong with it. But what I am talking about is whether a group acceptsthe mechanics a the sole determination of "setting physics" or whether the group expects the GM to adjuicate mechanics so their results comform better to his and their understanding of the setting physics. Personally i don't like the GM changing stuff "just because" but if there is a good reason to ignore RAW because it produces better supports hissense of the setting, i have no problem with it. I suppose if you are relying soley on mechanicsto inform your sense of setting physics, this could be jarring, but if you rely on setting, game events and common sense to determine "setting physics" it isn't much of a problem. Rules are good. I like GMs to be somewhat consistent in their application but rigid adherence to RAW, in my opinion, can actually break immersion if rules occassionally make you scratch your head (even f they work great 95% of the time).
Again, this is preference. If you want the rules to be followed to the letter, that isn't wrong. But neither are more relaxed approaches.
Brendan, I understand that you seem to have a response style that hinges on the idea that someone somewhere may or may not like to do X thing but seriously there is absolutely no reason for you to willfully misunderstand my position in order to produce some kind of seemingly moderate disagreement. I am pretty sure you read the part of the post you responded to so I'm going to highlight some parts you seem to be skipping over:
QuoteAs I said before "if" you are going to change the rules it should be done BEFORE the game begins and you should let all your players know that the rules have changed. To not do so and then expect them to read your mind or make in character decisions based on what you may or may not think is appropriate is being a bad GM. If you want your players to truly engage in the setting then they should know how the world's physics work or at least have some idea if they don't know how things should work then they know less then their characters do and that breaks any immersion you could hope to have as you have to zoom out and explain shit to the players that they should already know. If you have to keep telling them "no you get a +4 situation mod all of a sudden because I think your farming background should count here" or "you get a -4 to attack because you've never killed a man(you got the farmhand background) before and are hesitant to do so" that kills the mood. That's shit a player should know going into the game.
Giving me a speech about strict adherence to RAW completely ignores that the part of the post you quoted is about
consistency and not an essay against house rules.
Quote from: beejazz;589432As usual I think people are talking past each other.
I couldn't agree more.
Quotea)A character can do a whole lot before accounting for exceptional abilities.
b)Plus the exceptional abilities granted by their class.
Critiquing the relative value of classes (esp. in a game where you pick your class) can be valid, but the counterpoint is that characters can interact with the larger game pretty significantly prior to accounting for mechanical features. How significantly you can interact with the world prior to accounting for mechanical features varies game to game, adventure to adventure, and setting to setting. The OSR, besides its focus on old editions, is all about adventures and settings built for play. You can see why it would be a sore spot to say that classes were barred from participation in that sort of content.
Which is something I know and is something I've spoken about at length, what with me announcing how nothing people were describing is something that is specific to a particular class, how anybody could do the things people were going on about, about how the only difference between one character/class and another is what happens to be on the player's character sheet. I
know that characters can act within the world and are not "limited" to their character sheet. It is getting people to realize that what is on their character sheet is the half of what meaningfully distinguishes one guy with two hands from another guy with two hands in the game world. The other half is what the player decides to do with those hands. That, however, is heavily influenced by da rulez.
QuoteIn response to 4) I'm sensing a false dichotomy. Firstly, when a niche is defined by scaled values (such as stats) instead of binaries (feats, class features, spells) the activity is something every class can participate in *and* the class abilities are relevant enough to use.
Remember though this is in response to a question about why one is "better" than another. I was pointing out that one was better than another because of stats and their ability to do what they are "supposed" to do (A fighter living up to his namesake).
QuoteIn this thread, there's the (perceived) idea that certain skills are objectively less relevant. Even if you acknowledge that which skills are relevant vary game to game, you're at least going to have to clarify your position a few dozen times before people get the "maybe you should reduce or void the cost of irrelevant skills" bit as what it is.QuoteI'd suspect that's why I have to keep re-quoting myself.
QuoteAs for the argument about contribution, see my response to the last post (and the post itself). Maybe you can see how people would imagine you're conflating character and class, and unique contribution with general contribution. Again, one of the necessary inconveniences of arguing with people who aren't starting from the same premises is constant clarification.
"Class contribution" isn't something I've brought up or argued about in this thread.
QuoteLastly, I should probably add that when people are questioning why some skills are more/less relevant than others, they're also coming from a model where people choose what they do based on what they're good at rather than having to choose what they're good at based on what they end up doing. Taking the rails off is huge when it comes to making skills more balanced in relevance for this reason.
Note that I prefer using both methods (choosing tasks based on competencies and competencies based on tasks).
I'm not sure about what you mean here. Clarification please?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589452If you want to argue that HP are realistic be my guest, but 3E isnt the only edition of D&D. It is quite possible to face a foe with one attack after fifth level (multi attacks for classed characters belong to fighters for exampe in 2E and many monsters only get one attack with a weapon---andeven with more attacks many still cant drop a high hp character). Even if higher HD creatures always did get more attacks, it remains that when a 60 hp fighter squares of with an orc holding a sword, that orc cannot kill the fighter in one blow (orcs don't dissapear just because you are higher level). It is simply impossible given the hp system.
If you mean 1st level Orc Warrior... Yeah, he couldn't. The level 2 guy I just mentioned? An Orc.
Anyways I'm not calling them realistic, I'm saying there's enough random death without bringing in more out of place realism. There's enough Fighters losing without nerfing them further. And in older editions... monsters have multiple attacks. And there are more monsters.
QuoteThe point isn't that d&d should be more lethal, only that its lethality is greatly nerfed. Otherwise no one would go adventuring like they do in D&D. If you ever run a genuinely gritty system you see a big difference in how players conduct themselves. Generally the difference they avoid fighting whenever possible. Which is related to my previous point about rpg adventures encompassing a lot more than dungeon crawls and frequent combat. So my point is much of what you are saying, only really applies to D&D and not to a lot of other games (and even then i don't think your arguments are all that persuasive.
Something that still would not work in D&D due to the huge volume of things that allow foes to choose the time and place of an encounter.
Quote from: MGuy;589455I'm not sure about what you mean here. Clarification please?
Skill sets are more or less relevant depending on the context of the adventure, the encounter, or the setting. You acknowledge that.
But allowing greater choice in adventure, encounter, or setting (letting the party go where they want) allows the party to pick the contexts suited to their skill sets.
So you've got basket weaving? You play the parts of the game where that's useful. You make a bit of extra money while the party rests from major injury or brews potions, you fortify your domain with weaving-as-architecture, or whatever. I'm presuming basket weaving as a skill with applicability but narrow applicability. Since it's made up in the context of any version of D&D.
_________________
Assuming that basket weaving (or whatever) isn't relevant presumes that there's some limitation on the context that prevents its relevance. This could be genre constraints or the party not wanting to focus on such things* (in which case the skill set shouldn't exist) or mild railroading. Which most people here are strongly against.
In any case, your idea of reducing or voiding costs on such "peripheral" skills? Probably still the kind of thing most people would be fine with. I'd chalk up the resistance to recent agitation and a bit of how you arrived at the idea more than the idea itself.
*A difference in focus in terms of what the party wants out of the game is where the player conflict is probably coming from, more than a difference in playstyle along the lines getting discussed here.
McGuy, my response was to exactly what you said. I know you don't like my posting style for some reason (and that you seem to have a hard time understanding my position on many things--ranging from game to design to playstyle). Which is fine, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But my response was exactly to your point about having to state all rules changes in advance. Whether it is RAW or an agreed upon alteration to the RAW prior to play, the point I am making is the GMing tweaking results so they better conform to his sense of setting consistency and physics does not break immersion or cause players to engage the setting less. The point is consistency can stem from judgments and rulings sometimes, not just rules established before play (which can sometimes produce implausible results if the GM isn't given some flexibility).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589468The point is consistency can stem from judgments and rulings sometimes, not just rules established before play (which can sometimes produce implausible results if the GM isn't given some flexibility).
Which would be the entire point of having a GM.
Quote from: beejazz;589462Skill sets are more or less relevant depending on the context of the adventure, the encounter, or the setting. You acknowledge that.
But allowing greater choice in adventure, encounter, or setting (letting the party go where they want) allows the party to pick the contexts suited to their skill sets.
So you've got basket weaving? You play the parts of the game where that's useful. You make a bit of extra money while the party rests from major injury or brews potions, you fortify your domain with weaving-as-architecture, or whatever. I'm presuming basket weaving as a skill with applicability but narrow applicability. Since it's made up in the context of any version of D&D.
_________________
Assuming that basket weaving (or whatever) isn't relevant presumes that there's some limitation on the context that prevents its relevance. This could be genre constraints or the party not wanting to focus on such things* (in which case the skill set shouldn't exist) or mild railroading. Which most people here are strongly against.
In any case, your idea of reducing or voiding costs on such "peripheral" skills? Probably still the kind of thing most people would be fine with. I'd chalk up the resistance to recent agitation and a bit of how you arrived at the idea more than the idea itself.
*A difference in focus in terms of what the party wants out of the game is where the player conflict is probably coming from, more than a difference in playstyle along the lines getting discussed here.
Thank you for clarifying. I don't have any significant disagreements and in fact I'm going to start referring to them as "peripheral" skills.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589468McGuy, my response was to exactly what you said. I know you don't like my posting style for some reason (and that you seem to have a hard time understanding my position on many things--ranging from game to design to playstyle). Which is fine, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But my response was exactly to your point about having to state all rules changes in advance. Whether it is RAW or an agreed upon alteration to the RAW prior to play, the point I am making is the GMing tweaking results so they better conform to his sense of setting consistency and physics does not break immersion or cause players to engage the setting less. The point is consistency can stem from judgments and rulings sometimes, not just rules established before play (which can sometimes produce implausible results if the GM isn't given some flexibility).
Ahh, I gave you more credit then I should have then. You cannot be arguing for consistency while saying that it is ok for a GM to be inconsistent. You can choose to be inconsistent by keeping the option of changing the rules at the drop of a hat open, but you might as well admit that you are being inconsistent.
I will also state that I do not "dislike" your posting style. I don't have any major positive or negative opinion on it. I just think you purposefully obscure your point or couch everything you say as being subjective so that any disagreement with what you say is pointless. Every so often, as mentioned above, you say something that just doesn't make sense.
One thing I think needs pointing out is how many people actually take, literally, basket-weaving. Any? What we're really talking about is Adventuring Skills vs. Non-Adventuring Skills. Letting the argument be framed with the specific example of Basket-weaving is not the point.
Why might a character take Non-Adventuring Skills?
1. The campaign actually includes times when the players aren't "adventuring".
2. The Non-Adventuring Skills still serve important purposes. For example, a Samurai knowing artistic skills can increase his social status, marriage chances, etc.
3. Quasi-Adventuring benefits. Depending on the system, that Samurai's artistic skills might actually build Ki, Harmony, what have you, in which case, it's kind of an Adventuring Skill, even if not directly.
The "basket-weaver" argument basically assumes the player selects 100% non-useful skills in place of 100% useful skills. As most arguments of this type it does exist in a vacuum.
Now Mguy is giving it context, namely comparing specifically in 3.5 taking "Craft: some non-adventuring item" vs. Perception with limited skill ranks, so will continue this in another post.
Now Mguy is giving it context, namely comparing specifically in 3.5 taking "Craft: some non-adventuring item" vs. Perception.
So what?
A person takes a couple of their skill points per level and applies them to non-optimized, non-adventuring skills.
So what?
Why do you care whether this person does so or not?
Does your character give a crap about this (does he even know) or is this totally a player concern?
Asking seriously now...How is this even your business?
Quote from: CRKrueger;589487One thing I think needs pointing out is how many people actually take, literally, basket-weaving. Any? What we're really talking about is Adventuring Skills vs. Non-Adventuring Skills. Letting the argument be framed with the specific example of Basket-weaving is not the point.
Why might a character take Non-Adventuring Skills?
1. The campaign actually includes times when the players aren't "adventuring".
2. The Non-Adventuring Skills still serve important purposes. For example, a Samurai knowing artistic skills can increase his social status, marriage chances, etc.
3. Quasi-Adventuring benefits. Depending on the system, that Samurai's artistic skills might actually build Ki, Harmony, what have you, in which case, it's kind of an Adventuring Skill, even if not directly.
The "basket-weaver" argument basically assumes the player selects 100% non-useful skills in place of 100% useful skills. As most arguments of this type it does exist in a vacuum.
Now Mguy is giving it context, namely comparing specifically in 3.5 taking "Craft: some non-adventuring item" vs. Perception with limited skill ranks, so will continue this in another post.
This is worth pointing out. I basket weaving refers to taking a craft or trade that isn't likely to come up in 3E. In 2E it can be taking a NWP like Brewing (which can come in handy in non-combat scenarios IMO). It is true, from a purely combat perspective you might be better off taking Blind-fighting Riding, etc. If you throw exploration into the mix of important things you might be better off including Tracking, Navigation or Direction Sense. But if you engage in any investigative city adventures, political intrigue, or what have you, stuff like Dancing, Heraldry, Ancient History, Singing, Ettiquette, etc can be important as well. Further even stuff like Brewing, Cobbling, Cooking, POttery, Seamstress/Tailor, and Weaving can come up in a more fully fleshed out setting.
I would just add even if taking something like Brewing or Cooking is deemed entirely useless by the party, you are supposed to be making full characters, not robots who were designed for the dungeon from the day they were born. People are going to have traits and qualities that don't contribute to their current goals or functions (though they can always try to find interesting ways to make them contribute). In most groups I play in, people take a mix of obviously useful skills and clearly less useful but character appropriate skills.
Quote from: MGuy;589483Ahh, I gave you more credit then I should have then. You cannot be arguing for consistency while saying that it is ok for a GM to be inconsistent. You can choose to be inconsistent by keeping the option of changing the rules at the drop of a hat open, but you might as well admit that you are being inconsistent.
Sure you can. If you want results that are consistent with plausibility and the setting physics, you can say it is okay for the GM to make adjustments to rules or alter results during play in the name of consistency. You place priority on rules, so maybe you don't see it, but I am sure plenty of people here do. It all boils down to why you are at the table. If rules are what matter to you, I suppose you would label this being inconsistent. If setting is what matters to you, you might consider a rule (applied "consistently") to create an inconsistency in the setting or flow of events. To disrupt internal consistency for example.
QuoteI will also state that I do not "dislike" your posting style. I don't have any major positive or negative opinion on it. I just think you purposefully obscure your point or couch everything you say as being subjective so that any disagreement with what you say is pointless. Every so often, as mentioned above, you say something that just doesn't make sense.
Sounds to me like you don't like my posting style. I have noticed you and a couple of like-minded posters have picked up this rallying cry against me for some reason. But doesn't bother me. I am not going to change my personality to suit you. Nor am I going to try to convince you that this is a mischaracterization of things I have said (though I certainly believe it is). I happen to think distinguishing between opinion and objective fact is important. So most of my posts reflect that. I also think my thoughts on game design are pretty consistent and clear.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589489I would just add even if taking something like Brewing or Cooking is deemed entirely useless by the party, you are supposed to be making full characters, not robots who were designed for the dungeon from the day they were born. People are going to have traits and qualities that don't contribute to their current goals or functions (though they can always try to find interesting ways to make them contribute). In most groups I play in, people take a mix of obviously useful skills and clearly less useful but character appropriate skills.
This is the nub of it. We all as people have skills we don't use in our jobs. Shit we all play fucking stupid kids games when we could be doing FX trades, writing novels, or whatever.
People have a range of abilities that they pick up over time and sometimes these hobbies overwhelm their main skill set. I know a good IT project manager that really wants to run a roller rink and who used to skate in demonstrations. I know a business exec that loves steam engines and has gone to the point of buying one rebuilding it and carting it round country fayres at the weekend.
A good game system should allow me to create a rogue type character that is a greasy fence, a craven pickpocket, a skilled assasin, or a charming conman. All of those options should exist and any system that restricts these options down to skilled assasin is a bad system. Any rule that restricts my roleplay options is a bad system.
This doesn't mean by the way that I don't think Balance matters, I do. But I reserve the right to create a character who's focus is diferent to the cookie cutter adventurer.
I have had this argument with both the OSR guys before so it is quite amusing to me that the OSR guys are now attacking the Denners for holding a position very close to the one they seemed to hold themselves.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589487One thing I think needs pointing out is how many people actually take, literally, basket-weaving. Any? What we're really talking about is Adventuring Skills vs. Non-Adventuring Skills. Letting the argument be framed with the specific example of Basket-weaving is not the point.
Why might a character take Non-Adventuring Skills?
1. The campaign actually includes times when the players aren't "adventuring".
2. The Non-Adventuring Skills still serve important purposes. For example, a Samurai knowing artistic skills can increase his social status, marriage chances, etc.
3. Quasi-Adventuring benefits. Depending on the system, that Samurai's artistic skills might actually build Ki, Harmony, what have you, in which case, it's kind of an Adventuring Skill, even if not directly.
The "basket-weaver" argument basically assumes the player selects 100% non-useful skills in place of 100% useful skills. As most arguments of this type it does exist in a vacuum.
1) And what do you do at times when you're not adventuring? Not that adventuring includes intrigue, exploration, gathering info, etc.
2)I don't think you know a lot about what Samurai do in order to increase their social standing so instead of getting into all the particulars I'll ask you what do you think a Samurai does?
3)If "ki" or "harmony" whatever is relevant to what a character is regularly expected to use, have, need to get then artistic skills are appropriate to the motif of the game and therefore not a waste of space as Craft: Woven Basket is to a regular game of DnD. So yes, if we're talking about another game where artistic skills are significant in some fashion then artistic skills are not gimping thee character but that's practically tautological.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589488Now Mguy is giving it context, namely comparing specifically in 3.5 taking "Craft: some non-adventuring item" vs. Perception.
So what?
A person takes a couple of their skill points per level and applies them to non-optimized, non-adventuring skills.
So what?
Why do you care whether this person does so or not?
Does your character give a crap about this (does he even know) or is this totally a player concern?
Asking seriously now...How is this even your business?
Considering I mentioned Craft: Woven Basket several times and you're only just now getting the context shows me someone has not been paying attention. The fact that you still don't know "how" I feel about it and why only further shows this. Go back to page 4 cause you need to catch up to what I've been saying this entire time and it starts there.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589489This is worth pointing out. I basket weaving refers to taking a craft or trade that isn't likely to come up in 3E. In 2E it can be taking a NWP like Brewing (which can come in handy in non-combat scenarios IMO). It is true, from a purely combat perspective you might be better off taking Blind-fighting Riding, etc. If you throw exploration into the mix of important things you might be better off including Tracking, Navigation or Direction Sense. But if you engage in any investigative city adventures, political intrigue, or what have you, stuff like Dancing, Heraldry, Ancient History, Singing, Ettiquette, etc can be important as well. Further even stuff like Brewing, Cobbling, Cooking, POttery, Seamstress/Tailor, and Weaving can come up in a more fully fleshed out setting.
Please list the ways where Craft: Woven Basket will help you in an investigation more than Diplomacy, bluff, perception, survival (track), Sense Motive, etc.
QuoteI would just add even if taking something like Brewing or Cooking is deemed entirely useless by the party, you are supposed to be making full characters, not robots who were designed for the dungeon from the day they were born. People are going to have traits and qualities that don't contribute to their current goals or functions (though they can always try to find interesting ways to make them contribute). In most groups I play in, people take a mix of obviously useful skills and clearly less useful but character appropriate skills.
Please explain why it is bad to make those peripheral skills cost something different than more relevant skills. If you can't do that (and I doubt you can in any reasonable sense that doesn't involve you saying "somebody somewhere may be offended") then explain why it is better to have it cost the same as skills you actually find more useful. As it stands it sounds like you're saying those skills should exist which isn't something I've denied this entire time. If you've forgotten you may also go back to page 4 where I first laid that down.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589492Sure you can. If you want results that are consistent with plausibility and the setting physics, you can say it is okay for the GM to make adjustments to rules or alter results during play in the name of consistency. You place priority on rules, so maybe you don't see it, but I am sure plenty of people here do. It all boils down to why you are at the table. If rules are what matter to you, I suppose you would label this being inconsistent. If setting is what matters to you, you might consider a rule (applied "consistently") to create an inconsistency in the setting or flow of events. To disrupt internal consistency for example.
Consistency matters to me. I don't mind someone house ruling shit to make more sense to them but I as a player and as a character should have some sense of how the world works just as I as a living and breathing person have some sense of how the world around me works. I place the highest priority on consistency because the GM randomly changing rules as s/he wants at random does not give consistency. Altering rules during play
IS NOT CONSISTENCY and it never will be no matter how many times you claim that it is. What is and isn't plausible in imagination land is completely unknown unless there are some hard rules that everyone can understand in place. Even something as seemingly benign as saying "this is a medieval setting" is a fucking rule and thus I should expect the GM to never, under any circumstances, randomly decide that modern telecommunications exist just because they feel it would be consistent with their world view. Or to put it more rationally, I should never run into a situation where my character "suddenly" remembers he has a problem stabbifying people because he's never done it before. That should be an issue I already know about just as my character would already know about how nervous he is about serving people McMurder sandwiches. Being told at the point where it is pertinent (IE right when I get myself into a fight) is NOT being consistent.
QuoteSounds to me like you don't like my posting style. I have noticed you and a couple of like-minded posters have picked up this rallying cry against me for some reason. But doesn't bother me. I am not going to change my personality to suit you. Nor am I going to try to convince you that this is a mischaracterization of things I have said (though I certainly believe it is). I happen to think distinguishing between opinion and objective fact is important. So most of my posts reflect that. I also think my thoughts on game design are pretty consistent and clear.
I don't need you to change your personality. Understanding that you are being intentionally obscure, and ensuring that each and every one of your posts features subjective qualifiers only enables me to understand how to approach your posts. No need to feel victimized because I feel that 80% of your posts lack any real substance or that I think that you are guided more by "feelings" than any real insight as to how you actually want games to go.
Altering rules during play is not a problem in my experience. It's part of the rules in most rpgs that the gm should change rules for the betterment of the game.
What can be a problem, is a gm making rules changes that are not sound.
Personally, I would much prefer a gm make sound rules changes over a gm blindly adhereing to rules that do not work to the betterment of the game.
I realize there are gamers that can't function when a gm changes a rule, hoewever sound the change may be. I know one such player personally.
I genuinely believe that some of the 'gm must obey the rules without thought' stems from bad gm experiences.
Quote from: MGuy;589507Please list the ways where Craft: Woven Basket will help you in an investigation more than Diplomacy, bluff, perception, survival (track), Sense Motive, etc.
I never said it would help you in an investigation more than diplomacy or perception. In fact, I specificially left the 2E equivalents of weave basket out of my list of things that contribute to investigative play. All I said was stuff like basket weaving can come up in a fully fleshed out setting. I suggest you re-read my response, since i tried to break things into clear categories (and just so I am more clear, 2E NWP were my point of reference).
QuotePlease explain why it is bad to make those peripheral skills cost something different than more relevant skills. If you can't do that (and I doubt you can in any reasonable sense that doesn't involve you saying "somebody somewhere may be offended") then explain why it is better to have it cost the same as skills you actually find more useful. As it stands it sounds like you're saying those skills should exist which isn't something I've denied this entire time. If you've forgotten you may also go back to page 4 where I first laid that down.
It is not bad. It is a design choice. In some games you set costs for balance reasons, in others you set them according to what is most realistic, and in others you set them according to play expectations. Personally, I prefer cost to reflect difficulty of learning the skill, or just be one flat rate. But that is just me. Raising the cost of basket weaving because it is less useful in pay just doesn't appeal to me, because it doesn't make sense that basket weaving is harder to master than seeing things and I think creating a well rounded character ought to involve some sacrifice. But that is just me.
Not sure why you think I am concerned about offending people. I am not. All I have been doing is drawing distinctions between preference (I like dungeon crawls) and statements that try to turn preference into objective judgments (dungeon crawls are the best style of play).
QuoteI don't need you to change your personality. Understanding that you are being intentionally obscure, and ensuring that each and every one of your posts features subjective qualifiers only enables me to understand how to approach your posts. No need to feel victimized because I feel that 80% of your posts lack any real substance or that I think that you are guided more by "feelings" than any real insight as to how you actually want games to go.
Trust me, you would have to work a lot harder than this to make me feel victimized by you. Again, not going to try to change your opinion of me.
Quote from: MGuy;589507Consistency matters to me. I don't mind someone house ruling shit to make more sense to them but I as a player and as a character should have some sense of how the world works just as I as a living and breathing person have some sense of how the world around me works. I place the highest priority on consistency because the GM randomly changing rules as s/he wants at random does not give consistency. Altering rules during play IS NOT CONSISTENCY and it never will be no matter how many times you claim that it is. What is and isn't plausible in imagination land is completely unknown unless there are some hard rules that everyone can understand in place. Even something as seemingly benign as saying "this is a medieval setting" is a fucking rule and thus I should expect the GM to never, under any circumstances, randomly decide that modern telecommunications exist just because they feel it would be consistent with their world view. Or to put it more rationally, I should never run into a situation where my character "suddenly" remembers he has a problem stabbifying people because he's never done it before. That should be an issue I already know about just as my character would already know about how nervous he is about serving people McMurder sandwiches. Being told at the point where it is pertinent (IE right when I get myself into a fight) is NOT being consistent..
We have already gone over this several times. Bolding things isn't going to get us anywhere else. We are talking about two discrete things: consistency of setting and consistency of application of the rules. My only point here is relying on the rules or established procedures at the start of play isn't the only way to produce a consistent setting. If the GM and players are on the same page, the Gm can easily deviate from mechanics and won't feel confused or disengaged at all (particularly if his judgements are sound). It isn't that I disagree with you all that strongly here, I think we are 80% on the same page. For me, sticking to rules and procedures established prior to play is generally a good idea, but I leave room for those 5% of cases where the Gm is better off making an on the moment resolution when the rules of the book or houserules wouldn't help achieve a consistent setting and campaign event result. I suspect a lot of people agree with me (and that a lot agree with you as well). So it isn't just me trying to be "deliberately obscure", it is actually very pertinent to game design and points to the fact that there isn't a one-true way on this front. If you go too hard in either direction (with a game as popular as D&D) I think you end up with some issues. I terms of actual play it matters because you need to know your group. If I were running a game for you and Mr GC, I would stick to raw and pre-agreed upon procedures. if I were running a game with you, mr gc, benoist and Bill, I would take a slightly more flexible approach to accomodate the wider range of tastes at the table.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589515We have already gone over this several times. Bolding things isn't going to get us anywhere else. We are talking about two discrete things: consistency of setting and consistency of application of the rules. My only point here is relying on the rules or established procedures at the start of play isn't the only way to produce a consistent setting. If the GM and players are on the same page, the Gm can easily deviate from mechanics and won't feel confused or disengaged at all (particularly if his judgements are sound). It isn't that I disagree with you all that strongly here, I think we are 80% on the same page. For me, sticking to rules and procedures established prior to play is generally a good idea, but I leave room for those 5% of cases where the Gm is better off making an on the moment resolution when the rules of the book or houserules wouldn't help achieve a consistent setting and campaign event result. I suspect a lot of people agree with me (and that a lot agree with you as well). So it isn't just me trying to be "deliberately obscure", it is actually very pertinent to game design and points to the fact that there isn't a one-true way on this front. If you go too hard in either direction (with a game as popular as D&D) I think you end up with some issues. I terms of actual play it matters because you need to know your group. If I were running a game for you and Mr GC, I would stick to raw and pre-agreed upon procedures. if I were running a game with you, mr gc, benoist and Bill, I would take a slightly more flexible approach to accomodate the wider range of tastes at the table.
That game would be a mess. I don't think anyone at that table would like each other so even ignoring the whole basket weaver vs good player thing... yeah.
I did read your post Mguy, and I did respond to it adding the option you did not include.
Quote from: MeWhere in between killing things and taking their stuff, you can use those skills offstage during "downtime".
Which brings us back to what skills are 100% useless. There really aren't any, are there? If you're making something, you can sell it. If you're doing something non-Adventuring, that may affect the non-adventuring part of your character's life, aka social status, recognition, whatever.
The only time a skill is 100% useless is if the campaign you are playing in does not give your character the option to use it. Deep-Sea Diving skill on Dune for example (but even that could be used for pressurization, oxygen levels whatever, you know what I mean.)
Now considering a non-optimized skill selection disruptive is clearly a table decision as I stated before. Some will consider it downright rude, others won't care, others will attempt to use their Accountant skill to make a successful Basket-Weaving business with you as you winter in Waterdeep.
Now talking specifically about 3.5, personally I don't think characters have enough skill points to make particularly interesting characters, especially if you're talking about Fighters. The lack of skill points is where the dichotomy of extremes between basket-weaver and munchkin comes from, IMO. The addition of a separate pool of "non-Adventuring Skill" points or as you were advocating, a lower cost for such skills certainly would allow for more realistic characters while not impacting optimization.
However, there is another point I raised, namely that of metagame. Now if we were playing Shadowrun and my character had a "Dark Secret" and was on the run from a Megacorp who wanted him dead, you wouldn't expect your character or you as a player to know that, would you? Something like that certainly affects your character, since it can easily kill you when the hit team shows up and you happen to be there, but as a player you may not have that information. Isn't skill choice really the same thing?
Now this is really a per-table attitude, but it definitely has a "competitive sports metagame" thing going on that I think impedes the roleplay. Now I'm not the kind of person who develops gimped characters usually just for the roleplay challenge. I think that's just another type of Special Snowflakeism. I prefer random chargen, but if I randomly determine a gimp I'll play the hell out of him. As far as character builds go, unless we're going for the prize in a tournament, my exact character build isn't any of your damn business. Delivering a rundown of character build to the other members is a MMOG raiding requirement, not a roleplaying table requirement.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589516That game would be a mess. I don't think anyone at that table would like each other so even ignoring the whole basket weaver vs good player thing... yeah.
While I wouldn't characterize it as "basket weaver vs. good player" (I have played extensively with Bill and online with Benoist---both are great players), it is certainly possible the mix of personalities and playstyles simply won't work. It was just an example though. I have played with people who prefer more flexibility of rules and people who prefer greater adherance to RAW/fewer in-game rulings, and made it work by finding the right zone. I think so long as the players are willing to adapt by a hair in the interest of fun, there isn't a problem. In real life I have never had anyone instantly hate each other over stuff like this. Life is too short to hold grudges over difference of playstyle.
Quote from: MGuy;589507Considering I mentioned Craft: Woven Basket several times and you're only just now getting the context shows me someone has not been paying attention. The fact that you still don't know "how" I feel about it and why <...snip...>
one it before. That should be an issue I already know about just as my character would already know about how nervous he is about serving people McMurder sandwiches. Being told at the point where it is pertinent (IE right when I get myself into a fight) is NOT being consistent.
.
One of my main problems with 4e was that you couldn't build a character that was bad at combat.
All the rogues turn out like Cardinal Chang rather than Locke Lamora.
If you make all skills that are 'not good for adventures' cheap then you do 2 things
i) you restrict player options
ii) you run the risk of creating a loop hole that gives you something like the ludicrous levels of diplomacy
If you simply make all skills cost the same you are giving the player the option of chosing whether they create a tougher character or a weaker one.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589520While I wouldn't characterize it as "basket weaver vs. good player" (I have played extensively with Bill and online with Benoist---both are great players), it is certainly possible the mix of personalities and playstyles simply won't work. It was just an example though. I have played with people who prefer more flexibility of rules and people who prefer greater adherance to RAW/fewer in-game rulings, and made it work by finding the right zone. I think so long as the players are willing to adapt by a hair in the interest of fun, there isn't a problem. In real life I have never had anyone instantly hate each other over stuff like this. Life is too short to hold grudges over difference of playstyle.
A basket weaver is the antithesis of a good player, but ignoring that and only focusing on the subjective bullshit you like so much... Benoist has made it very clear he doesn't like me and probably doesn't like MGuy either, pretty sure Bill isn't a fan, MGuy has said he doesn't like me very much and probably doesn't like them either... Ok, maybe Benoist and Bill would like each other but for the most part it'd be exactly the opposite of what a game should be about - namely friends working for mutual betterment.
So I stand by that game being a mess. There's enough games like that without intentionally seeking them out.
And even if it were something like me and MGuy (who I'm really not sure why you're labeling on the same side, as he's fully drunk on the Den kool aid)... somehow I doubt that would work either. I suspect I would be very, very bored as you just wouldn't be playing on the same level as me, so I'd be facerolling everything and you'd get frustrated about that and well yeah. Still a mess.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589517Which brings us back to what skills are 100% useless. There really aren't any, are there?
No, there aren't. If the GM reads up on and understands the implications of these skills, the possibilities multiply. Its one of the most fulfilling things about gaming for me to be honest - why did we not have the internet and its vast research resources back in 1980?!
Anyway yeah this thread is a fucking shambles, blood, guts and ass everywhere. I'm stepping over the carnage, mostly I read threads through but a few pages of this congealed thong convinced me that wasn't a good idea.
The initial premise was proven conclusively wrong on page 2. And here we are on page whathefuck arguing with Mr GC and his civil servant avatar.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589513I never said it would help you in an investigation more than diplomacy or perception. In fact, I specificially left the 2E equivalents of weave basket out of my list of things that contribute to investigative play. All I said was stuff like basket weaving can come up in a fully fleshed out setting. I suggest you re-read my response, since i tried to break things into clear categories (and just so I am more clear, 2E NWP were my point of reference).
I know what you said. That piece about NWPs doesn't hang my point. In fact it only clarifies how 2e skill stuff works but doesn't change my point. Here's the deal: there are different things you're going to do for different games. DnD is primarily about adventuring. Most of the rules are aimed towards doing that. What are the chances that you are going to "attempt" to weave baskets in any game system that you know of versus the chances you'll need to attempt to notice something.
Yes, there is some chance that you'll have something that comes up that involves weaving baskets but those chances are vanishingly small. Now copy paste that for any and all similarly narrow skills.
QuoteIt is not bad. It is a design choice. In some games you set costs for balance reasons, in others you set them according to what is most realistic, and in others you set them according to play expectations. Personally, I prefer cost to reflect difficulty of learning the skill, or just be one flat rate. But that is just me. Raising the cost of basket weaving because it is less useful in pay just doesn't appeal to me, because it doesn't make sense that basket weaving is harder to master than seeing things and I think creating a well rounded character ought to involve some sacrifice. But that is just me.
Raising the cost of basket weaving (an already practically useless skill) only makes people even less likely to get it. I don't know why anyone would do that and I suspect that weaving baskets is not hard to do. Point is it is best to just have it not cost you the same thing as getting points in perception. There's no "balance" in keeping it at a flat rate. You just encourage people to not invest in it which is what most people do. If you want more players to actually get skills like that you have to make getting those skills appealing or force them to. I think the former is better than the latter.
QuoteNot sure why you think I am concerned about offending people. I am not. All I have been doing is drawing distinctions between preference (I like dungeon crawls) and statements that try to turn preference into objective judgments (dungeon crawls are the best style of play).
Because if you're debating something then saying "I like it" means next to nothing. That can't be argued with. There is no response. I could suggest that you might like something else better but there's no rubric for taste.
QuoteTrust me, you would have to work a lot harder than this to make me feel victimized by you. Again, not going to try to change your opinion of me.
It doesn't take work for someone to feel victimized.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589515It isn't that I disagree with you all that strongly here, I think we are 80% on the same page. For me, sticking to rules and procedures established prior to play is generally a good idea, but I leave room for those 5% of cases where the Gm is better off making an on the moment resolution when the rules of the book or houserules wouldn't help achieve a consistent setting and campaign event result.
If you don't disagree then why are you trying to say Consistency = inconsistency? Rules are made with the purpose of making imagination land sync up better and provides consistency. You are literally suggesting that a GM changing the rules mid game, with no prior warning, is consistency. That is not. You can say that "I believe that a GM should change the rules when they feel it is necessary" but the very act of changing the rules is not consistent. It is especially not consistent in the method that was described earlier where two different people with the same mods roll the same thing for the same skill check and got two different results because the GM willed it so.. That kind of GM wankery is most definitely not consistent and I'm not sure what kind of mental hoops you're putting yourself through to claim that it is.
2067084497
Quote from: CRKrueger;589517I did read your post Mguy, and I did respond to it adding the option you did not include.
Which fantastically enough doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. There's no reason you can't use ANY skill during downtime. Hell I can swing a sword during downtime. But that is only a reflection of how you are not comprehending my argument. It only gets worse with the following:
QuoteWhich brings us back to what skills are 100% useless. There really aren't any, are there? If you're making something, you can sell it. If you're doing something non-Adventuring, that may affect the non-adventuring part of your character's life, aka social status, recognition, whatever.
Selling woven baskets pales in comparison to adventuring money making wise, social status wise, and in every other application you can place the skill of weaving baskets. You're going to have to try much harder to make weaving baskets seem comparable to saving the village from being burned down.
QuoteThe only time a skill is 100% useless is if the campaign you are playing in does not give your character the option to use it. Deep-Sea Diving skill on Dune for example (but even that could be used for pressurization, oxygen levels whatever, you know what I mean.)
That's not necessarily true. I can have Diplomacy and never get a chance to use it in a game. Diplomacy is still a useful skill to have even if you don't have the best diplomacy check in the party.
QuoteNow considering a non-optimized skill selection disruptive is clearly a table decision as I stated before. Some will consider it downright rude, others won't care, others will attempt to use their Accountant skill to make a successful Basket-Weaving business with you as you winter in Waterdeep.
That is not what
I'msaying, at all.
QuoteNow talking specifically about 3.5, personally I don't think characters have enough skill points to make particularly interesting characters, especially if you're talking about Fighters. The lack of skill points is where the dichotomy of extremes between basket-weaver and munchkin comes from, IMO. The addition of a separate pool of "non-Adventuring Skill" points or as you were advocating, a lower cost for such skills certainly would allow for more realistic characters while not impacting optimization.
Wizards also lack skill points to toss around. Really the only one with them to spare would be rogues and possibly bards with high intel.
QuoteHowever, there is another point I raised, namely that of metagame. Now if we were playing Shadowrun and my character had a "Dark Secret" and was on the run from a Megacorp who wanted him dead, you wouldn't expect your character or you as a player to know that, would you? Something like that certainly affects your character, since it can easily kill you when the hit team shows up and you happen to be there, but as a player you may not have that information. Isn't skill choice really the same thing?
No it isn't the same thing. One is a plot coupon good for fucking up your day. The other is knowing what your character knows they can do.
QuoteNow this is really a per-table attitude, but it definitely has a "competitive sports metagame" thing going on that I think impedes the roleplay. Now I'm not the kind of person who develops gimped characters usually just for the roleplay challenge. I think that's just another type of Special Snowflakeism. I prefer random chargen, but if I randomly determine a gimp I'll play the hell out of him.
What does separating relevant skills from irrelevant skills have to do with competitiveness? What do you think Special Snowflake means?
Quote from: jibbajibba;589523One of my main problems with 4e was that you couldn't build a character that was bad at combat.
All the rogues turn out like Cardinal Chang rather than Locke Lamora.
If you make all skills that are 'not good for adventures' cheap then you do 2 things
i) you restrict player options
ii) you run the risk of creating a loop hole that gives you something like the ludicrous levels of diplomacy
If you simply make all skills cost the same you are giving the player the option of chosing whether they create a tougher character or a weaker one.
Isn't "lack of choice" something people were saying was good about older editions?
Well skipping that, I don't know that you can't make a character that is bad at combat in 4E. I made a paladin when I tried it out and I was pretty damn useless. Honestly if it weren't for the GM choosing to have enemies attack me for what was in my opinion no good reason (when there were better, more effective targets) I'm fairly sure that my character would have been COMPLETELY ineffective.
Edition stuff aside neither of those things are likely to happen. In fact making Craft: Woven Basket free makes it a more attractive option because you can get it without taking a hit to your character's overall effectiveness and add fluff to your character that may/may not come up. The second thing is almost an impossibility because "Diplomacy"is one of dem good skills and still would go by the same normal costs.
Quote from: MGuy;589535I know what you said. That piece about NWPs doesn't hang my point. In fact it only clarifies how 2e skill stuff works but doesn't change my point. Here's the deal: there are different things you're going to do for different games. DnD is primarily about adventuring. Most of the rules are aimed towards doing that. What are the chances that you are going to "attempt" to weave baskets in any game system that you know of versus the chances you'll need to attempt to notice something.
Yes, there is some chance that you'll have something that comes up that involves weaving baskets but those chances are vanishingly small. Now copy paste that for any and all similarly narrow skills.
I am not disputing that it might come up less than say survival in a standard campaign. That doesn't mean it ought to cost less or that peope shouldn't take it. Basket weaving is probably as difficult to learn as most other skills. If you are going to impose a cost difference my preference would be for it to be based on how hard it is to learn, not how useful it is.
That said thiskind of stuff comes up pretty often in a fleshed out setting where roleplaying is important. I have seen something like Brewing become an important part of a campaign for example.
QuoteRaising the cost of basket weaving (an already practically useless skill) only makes people even less likely to get it. I don't know why anyone would do that and I suspect that weaving baskets is not hard to do. Point is it is best to just have it not cost you the same thing as getting points in perception. There's no "balance" in keeping it at a flat rate. You just encourage people to not invest in it which is what most people do. If you want more players to actually get skills like that you have to make getting those skills appealing or force them to. I think the former is better than the latter.
I don't want to rig the system so people feel encouraged to take basket weaving. You take it because it fits the character, not because you done a cost benefit analysid. If you begin with the premise that this is a well thought out character with a history and personal interests, sarificing blind fighting for Cobbling isn't such a big deal.
Again, the issue I am raising is there are several design approaches here. You see to be arguing way A is the best nd only approach. Well that approach doesn't really appeal to me. For a large group of people who play D&D my approach is going to be referable to yours. When they make 5E the best approach is the ne they calculate will work well for most groups.
QuoteBecause if you're debating something then saying "I like it" means next to nothing. That can't be argued with. There is no response. I could suggest that you might like something else better but there's no rubric for taste.
Well, we are talking about something that is a matter of taste. Not sure why this would present such a problem.
QuoteIt doesn't take work for someone to feel victimized.
OK.
QuoteQuoteIf you don't disagree then why are you trying to say Consistency = inconsistency? Rules are made with the purpose of making imagination land sync up better and provides consistency. You are literally suggesting that a GM changing the rules mid game, with no prior warning, is consistency. That is not. You can say that "I believe that a GM should change the rules when they feel it is necessary" but the very act of changing the rules is not consistent. It is especially not consistent in the method that was described earlier where two different people with the same mods roll the same thing for the same skill check and got two different results because the GM willed it so.. That kind of GM wankery is most definitely not consistent and I'm not sure what kind of mental hoops you're putting yourself through to claim that it is.
I said I share your much of your preference for consistent rules application. But importantly, i think you need some room to adjust midstream in the interest of keeping internal consistency and plausibility in the setting. So I am making think, and characterize it however you like, that consistency doesn't have to be about about the rules, it can be more about the setting. One could say it is consistent to employ mechanic A for all combat situations, but if you encounter an edge case where using it produces an inconsistency in the setting, then some people will label it inconsistent (even if you re consistently applying the rules). So i am making an important discussion here (consistency of setting versus rules) and the reason i am making it is because you appeared to be using consistency earlier to refer both to the setting expectations/internal logic and whether one is applying the rules in a regular fashion.
Swimming, Climbing, Tracking, and Perception being more useful skills for Conan the Barbarian then "Craft: anything but sword or armor" is not a difficult concept and of course I or anyone else reading this thread understands it.
However, we're back to
So what?
and
How do you, Mguy even know my character Conan took Basketweaving last level and why do you care?
Two questions you still haven't really answered.
Yes I understand Elfdart and Jibba's character's aren't optimized. Any fool can calculate strength.
Can you understand the fact that I don't give a shit, and really am wondering why you think you're entitled to give a shit?
You think my character is a weight around your neck, put a sword in his kidney and dump him in a ditch.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589528Benoist has made it very clear he doesn't like me
You're the one jumping to conclusions, putting people into the "basket weaving" category to then adamantly pretend like you know them and you don't like them.
I don't know you.
To me, so far, you are a bunch of initials on the web with posts attached to them that basically look like you're parodying some internet tough guy with the avatar to boot. (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/kungfumaster.htm)
What I know is that (1) you know fuck all about D&D and RPGs, (2) you have been lying specifically about your actual knowledge of First Edition AD&D, since EVERYTHING you said about it was wrong, (3) you are not here to have a discussion but rather to flame away for the lulz, and (4) you will not man up and own your own mistakes, acknowledge them and move on from there like normal, responsible, adult human beings.
Honestly, beyond that I don't know you. If you want me to care, you'll have to have to prove you are here to have an actual conversation and basically behave like a normal human being, not some random anonymous handle out there trolling because he can.
I think you're reading too much into it. I think it's fair to say we wouldn't get along with each other well and so couldn't play in the same game together. Do you think it isn't a fair assessment? If you're getting more out of it than that you're getting the wrong impression. I wasn't looking to pick a fight with that remark.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589546I think you're reading too much into it. I think it's fair to say we wouldn't get along with each other well and so couldn't play in the same game together. Do you think it isn't a fair assessment? If you're getting more out of it than that you're getting the wrong impression. I wasn't looking to pick a fight with that remark.
I have no idea. I can't answer this question. Sometimes people in RL are completely different from what you'd see of them online. Especially when they are anonymous and cultivate some sort of internet tough guy persona the way you are right now. For all I know, you are a 20-something soft kitty who lives at his mom and prepares hot chocolate for her right now, and you wouldn't even dare talk to her the way you are to us right now, so you use your anonymity online to unload your bullshit and feel like you could have been somebody if only you had had the balls to be yourself in the real world.
Who knows, right?
I don't know.
Ergo, I can't answer your question, one way or the other, and you honestly don't give me much in the way of opportunities to really give a shit either.
Quote from: MGuy;589537Isn't "lack of choice" something people were saying was good about older editions?
Well skipping that, I don't know that you can't make a character that is bad at combat in 4E. I made a paladin when I tried it out and I was pretty damn useless. Honestly if it weren't for the GM choosing to have enemies attack me for what was in my opinion no good reason (when there were better, more effective targets) I'm fairly sure that my character would have been COMPLETELY ineffective.
Edition stuff aside neither of those things are likely to happen. In fact making Craft: Woven Basket free makes it a more attractive option because you can get it without taking a hit to your character's overall effectiveness and add fluff to your character that may/may not come up. The second thing is almost an impossibility because "Diplomacy"is one of dem good skills and still would go by the same normal costs.
No we said there isn't enough customisation potential in older editions to make a truly gimped character. we didn't say if that was good or bad just that you can't do it.
The basic break here is a playstyle one.
You think that a good game creates characters who are all competant in their chosen niche and can contribute fully to the scenario. You also seem to believe that a game like D&D has a narrow number of scenarios and that most of those will involve in some form killing things and taking their stuff. You see it as a duty of each player to create a character that can pull their weight in the presumed game paradigm. Right so far?
Mr CG thinks that he is awesome and that he is the best roleplayer because he can find the best rules exploit to create the most optimised chanracter in terms of the predicated game paradigm. I suspect he regards taking suboptimal choices either in char gen or in play as BAD PLAY. So Mr GC thinks that 3.5 is the shit because there are lots of rules on character gen so more chances for optimisation.
Both of these are just playstyle choices.
I think that in fact as its a roleplaying game taking suboptimal choices due to roleplay reasons is good roleplay even if it results in a TPK. I also think that a game that allows you to create characters of each class that are well balanced for a particualr game paradignm is a good one, but I don't want the game to actively preclude me from making suboptimal choices if I want to. Not every superhero needs to be superman there is room to have fun playing wonder woman or even Batman.
I can see that you want a perfect system and you are trying to proselytise how that system might look and play but you have to understand that there are entirely other ways of playing from the OSR player skill with minimal input from the character to a heavy roleplaying game. D&D can cope with all of these types of games. You must realise that and that the people here whatever their personal foibles and sometimes blinkered view on the reality of their favourite games do have favourite games and have had a fucking lot of years to decide what their favourite playstyle is so its unlikely that you pointing out that their math doesn't add up or the game doesn't actually work like that is just going to annoy them. You would be better off trying to see what it is about their favourite style that they enjoy and trying to incorporate that into your homebrew game.
No one isn't going to play a game because the characters are too balanced. People didn't hate 4e because the classes were balanced they hated it because the classes were the same. Balance doesn't have to do that.
Mr CG is pretty much a hopeless case as he really does regard his playstyle as the pinacle and it's obvious that he has so few social skills that he can't grasp that the person that wins in D&D is the person that everyone likes because they are fun to play with. They are the guys that can always get a game and that is a much better measure of winning than the one that can build a character with the highest DPS.
Quote from: jibbajibba;587840I hate optimisation becuase its highly unrealistic and becuase I love role playing.
So I create a character and if they end up withe lots of points in basket weaving then so be it, if they for example come from a long line of basket weavers.
No problem with that. You have to have options. Options enable roleplay. Roleplay is good.
Now deliberately optimising basket weaving is just as faux as deliberately optimising everything but spending enough points to be a master weaver that is fine.
I dislike 'professional adventures' far more than I dislike basket weavers, plumbers, horse salesman and egyptology professors.
I ran a Zombipocalypse game one shot where the PCs were all workers on a tube train. I used a modded oWoD system. Each PC rolled a job. We had 2 office workers, a plumber and a teacher. They created their PCs as realistically as they could. The tube (underground train) they were on got caught in a temporal rift, triggerd by an NPC on the carriage, they all wake to find themselves and a handful of others on the crashed train,. Then the Zombies show up.
I didn't tell the players what was coming but there was a definite desire to get the usual combat skills if they could trying to justify it through being in the TA, being an amateur boxer, a martial arts fanatic etc ..
They eventually got the idea and pulled that back to norm levels.
This for the win.
I create characters based on a background story and they get skills accordingly. So if someone was, say, a wage slave in a corporate labor world until he was rescued by the rebellion and joined as a soldier, he might start out with more skills in various fields of work than combat, he's just beginning his combat career. Hey, the lower skills are usually developed faster and easier in most systems, so it works out.
I admit basketweaving in itself isn't too useful, but I understand it's being used as an example.
Quote from: jibbajibba;589550Mr CG is pretty much a hopeless case as he really does regard his playstyle as the pinacle and it's obvious that he has so few social skills that he can't grasp that the person that wins in D&D is the person that everyone likes because they are fun to play with. They are the guys that can always get a game and that is a much better measure of winning than the one that can build a character with the highest DPS.
As I mentioned before, this 'BaDaSs HARDCOREZ D+D PLAYA' crap is a self-delusional ego shield. RPGs have a referee of some kind; DM, GM, Storyteller, Hollyhock God(ess), whatever. Therefore, all RPGs of every stripe include some kind of social contract and negotiation between the participants.
Every single one. Pretending this is some bizarre artefact of Vintage Games is
utterly stupid. GMs in modern games are not shackled to the rules any more than in older games, and it is delusional to think they are.
And internet tough-guy players just
love using oral sex metaphors to denigrate a style that isn't as HARDCORE as theirs. So, while they are fellating the DM with maths, they want to laugh at point at other players that are fellating the DM with prose, because that is clearly how
retards play. Except they get a money shot in the eye when they start pointing.
So before we start presenting 'arguments' for the basket weaving style of play as though the HARDCORE PLAYA's points have even the slightest amount of merit, let's remember that 'sword weavers' get a hot load in the mouth no differently. To paraphrase their favourite prancing tune:
All night long, the whining drones.
All night long, the tough guy moans
for a warm, mother-like DM,
who'll hide the math that coddles him,
Fellatio!Or, probably the better idea is to dispense with this junior high bullshit using homophobic undertones and engage in actual discussion.
There has not been presented so much as
one example from any game that
isn't D&D 3.5 where this kind of skill selection is even a slight problem. In fact, the only kind of D&D 3.5 games where this
is a problem are the ones that are played like a board game recreation of WoW using skills, feats and other character sheet information exclusively to resolve every single action. The only time a non-combat skill is pointless is when there are zero non-combat activities.
To put it in general terms: Only worthless players complain about worthless game elements.
Rage all you want about 'basket-weavers' or 'gimped characters', just don't forget that 'mother may I' with numbers is still 'mother may I'.
I am an active member of a raiding guild in World of Warcraft. If I want to scratch the itch that GC goes on about, then I will either log into the game, watch raid/dungeon videos at YouTube, or I will read the latest threads about my main's class and spec at Elitist Jerks. World of Warcraft is a good enough venue for this sort of thing, once you get to the level cap, and that's where I see a lot of GC's attitude taken as quite acceptable. Given that there's really no role-playing in WOW, I can tolerate that.
Why the fuckity-fuck-fuck-McFuck would you want to do that to a tabletop role-playing game? This is not Arhkam Horror, Descent or (Advanced) Heroquest. It's something else from MMORPGs and boardgames, and reducing it to that not only points out why those other media are superior outlets for such preferences it also demonstrates that one simply does not comprehend what this medium is actually good at doing. (It's not good at competitive gaming- no really, that's why the Raid/PVP Scene in MMOs, CCGs in general, and boardgames stole so many such folks away.)
There's nothing to win here. Being "hardcore" or "competitive" really means that you're a pathetic shit of a man; that attitude is, simply put, not okay. It's not that I can't fathom the paradigm either; it's that the end result is one where you end up a Bitter Non-Gamer because no one sane will play with you, and as TRPGs are very much a game dependent entirely upon being connected to the social network of users being cut off for being a big dick about this stuff being shunned actually is an effective punishment.
Speaking of shunning...
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;589614I am an active member of a raiding guild in World of Warcraft. If I want to scratch the itch that GC goes on about, then I will either log into the game, watch raid/dungeon videos at YouTube, or I will read the latest threads about my main's class and spec at Elitist Jerks. World of Warcraft is a good enough venue for this sort of thing, once you get to the level cap, and that's where I see a lot of GC's attitude taken as quite acceptable. Given that there's really no role-playing in WOW, I can tolerate that.
Why the fuckity-fuck-fuck-McFuck would you want to do that to a tabletop role-playing game? This is not Arhkam Horror, Descent or (Advanced) Heroquest. It's something else from MMORPGs and boardgames, and reducing it to that not only points out why those other media are superior outlets for such preferences it also demonstrates that one simply does not comprehend what this medium is actually good at doing. (It's not good at competitive gaming- no really, that's why the Raid/PVP Scene in MMOs, CCGs in general, and boardgames stole so many such folks away.)
There's nothing to win here. Being "hardcore" or "competitive" really means that you're a pathetic shit of a man; that attitude is, simply put, not okay. It's not that I can't fathom the paradigm either; it's that the end result is one where you end up a Bitter Non-Gamer because no one sane will play with you, and as TRPGs are very much a game dependent entirely upon being connected to the social network of users being cut off for being a big dick about this stuff being shunned actually is an effective punishment.
Speaking of shunning...
If you wanted to bring up competitive games you'd bring up the relevant ones. You know, the skill based ones, not just pass gear check to win.
That said, you're right that outside of tabletop people are much less stupid about effective play as they don't have these bizarre blocks against it. But that's the only thing you were right about.
In order to continue with your whole making effective D&D characters is stupid spiel you must first explain why any real person would not choose to be good at a job that has a high chance of killing them and yet continue doing that job. As you will be unable to do so, and roleplaying is about portraying a fictional character as if they are a real person, you must then accept that real roleplaying
is optimizing.
You will not do this, as that'd require you to make sense and admit that I am right.
At least you're not going on some spiel about playing the actual game instead of whining that D&D is too hard and you'd rather play pretend is also blowing the DM.
That said, I have players to play with. The problem is the good ones are so extremely rare.
Mr GC real people are not optimized. They dont focus on training for a single profession their whole life. They pick up basket weaving skills here or there. Even someone like a soldier or pro athlete likely had some interests outside their chosen profession. Plus peopke make 'suboptimal' decisions all the time for a host of reasons.
Real people try to be effective at what they do. But real people also have flaws and deal with a much more clouded reality because they cant metagame like a player does.
I would just add people who are bad at their occupations (even dangerous ones) stick to it out of passion all the time. I have met plenty of not so great cops, untalented boxers, sucky extreme sports nuts, awful fisherman etc. They do it because they like it. Some even overcome a lack of talent and get better.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589627I would just add people who are bad at their occupations (even dangerous ones) stick to it out of passion all the time. I have met plenty of not so great cops, untalented boxers, sucky extreme sports nuts, awful fisherman etc. They do it because they like it. Some even overcome a lack of talent and get better.
Bad boxers at worst get knocked the fuck out. Fishermen don't get eaten by fish if they're bad at fishing. Even stuff like cops... a bad cop is going to be put on something like checking meters (the adventure equivalent of rat farming) in an attempt to protect them from themselves.
The whole skills argument is irrelevant because as I mentioned before skills are a different resource pool than effectiveness anyways and therefore all skills might as well be literal basket weaving.
Bad boxers at worst can die. It is rare but happens (even in the amateurs).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589634Bad boxers at worst can die. It is rare but happens (even in the amateurs).
The chances are near 0 though. Whereas a bad adventurer gets laid out and that means he's dead in the best case scenario. More likely he ends up an undead minion/having his soul eaten/etc.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589639The chances are near 0 though. Whereas a bad adventurer gets laid out and that means he's dead in the best case scenario. More likely he ends up an undead minion/having his soul eaten/etc.
Hehe, you are funny. Despite the unaldulterated fact that the adventurer's relative chance of death is derived from whatever the DM wants it to be, you keep arguing that a player's skill in character creation and utilization of character resources is paramount. You are a fun guy. :)
Quote from: Old One Eye;589640Hehe, you are funny. Despite the unaldulterated fact that the adventurer's relative chance of death is derived from whatever the DM wants it to be, you keep arguing that a player's skill in character creation and utilization of character resources is paramount. You are a fun guy. :)
I'm going to pretend this isn't a one liner fuck you type post.
Even normal enemies have a very high chance of killing such characters, so it doesn't matter.
And so it makes a big difference if you're a badly played Rogue or a well played Wizard.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589639The chances are near 0 though. Whereas a bad adventurer gets laid out and that means he's dead in the best case scenario. More likely he ends up an undead minion/having his soul eaten/etc.
It is non-zero chance of dying, which you always say matters so much.
Since we are limited to real world analogs they will have to do. Fisherman and cops are two of the most dangerous professions. There are bad fisherman and cops. People dont always get into professions they have a natural aptitude for. Boxer is also up there in terms of sheer physical punishment and damage. Yet guys stay in boxing for years as tomato cans because they either love the sport or are desperate for cash.
Look at criminal professions. There are criminals who would have been better off taking another 'class' or entering a different profession, but for money, desperation and/or love of the lifestyle they choose to be criminals.
Real people are not optimized.
Mr GC, I have a question for you.
When you play, do you ever speak as your character? Do people you play with ever speak in their first person character's voice. No, I'm not talking about speaking in a funny voice or a fake accent or anything. I'm just talking about saying the words that your character would be saying like it was an improvised skit.
Is that part of a RPG to you? Or since it has no bearing on killing monsters, does it have no place in your game? Is portraying a character just non-mechanical basket weaving according to your definition?
Quote from: Gabriel2;589645Mr GC, I have a question for you.
When you play, do you ever speak as your character? Do people you play with ever speak in their first person character's voice. No, I'm not talking about speaking in a funny voice or a fake accent or anything. I'm just talking about saying the words that your character would be saying like it was an improvised skit.
Is that part of a RPG to you? Or since it has no bearing on killing monsters, does it have no place in your game? Is portraying a character just non-mechanical basket weaving according to your definition?
Is this a serious question? I'm going to assume it is even though I am fairly certain it is not.
My stance has always been that optimization promotes roleplay so I'm not sure why you'd think I didn't do both but yes I do end up doing both.
You know, I'd never heard about the basket weaving issue before, but if it came up in a game I was running or someone insisted on mocking the basket weaving skill over and over, I'd probably slap him down as a GM in some way.
One issue is you end up with a big hole in the side of your ship and limited materials to fix it. A guy who had basket weaving as a skill might look at the materials you had and make a latticework of thin metal bands that was actually quite strong based on his basket weaving skill, which would serve as the basis for an efficient patch to get you home.
Another issue might be a guy designing a new type of ship using limited materials for maximum efficiency might end up talking with a guy with the basket weaving skill who actually has a lot of experience making strong, durable, load bearing 3D frameworks with minimum resources, and the two end up working out a framework for the hull that is strong, durable and very efficient.
I'm citing those as oiff the top of my head examples of making the skill useful, but if someone kept bashing that skill I might toss incidents like that in just to shut him up.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589641Even normal enemies have a very high chance of killing such characters, so it doesn't matter.
And so it makes a big difference if you're a badly played Rogue or a well played Wizard.
No, it doesn't matter whether a badly played Rogue or a well played Wizard. It only matters in the one specific playstyle your group prefers. ;)
The DM sets the challenges, the players react to those challenges. A badly played Rogue can have easy, moderate, hard, or impossible challenges. A well played Wizard can have easy, moderate, hard, or impossible challenges.
A badly played Rogue and a well played Wizard adventuring side-by-side can have problems. Those problems largely disappear when it is acceptable for the party to split. Rogue goes to handle ABC easier challenge, Wizard goes to handle XYZ harder challenge.
Every possible character concept in the game, even the most gimpy of gimpies, can be challenged in a manner appropriate to its ability.
What you have really been saying this whole thread is that you have a preference for a particular playstyle and do not want to play under different playstyles. Perfectly fine position to take. The passion with which you take such a position is fun; I'm enjoying it.
Quote from: Old One Eye;589654No, it doesn't matter whether a badly played Rogue or a well played Wizard. It only matters in the one specific playstyle your group prefers. ;)
The DM sets the challenges, the players react to those challenges. A badly played Rogue can have easy, moderate, hard, or impossible challenges. A well played Wizard can have easy, moderate, hard, or impossible challenges.
A badly played Rogue and a well played Wizard adventuring side-by-side can have problems. Those problems largely disappear when it is acceptable for the party to split. Rogue goes to handle ABC easier challenge, Wizard goes to handle XYZ harder challenge.
Every possible character concept in the game, even the most gimpy of gimpies, can be challenged in a manner appropriate to its ability.
What you have really been saying this whole thread is that you have a preference for a particular playstyle and do not want to play under different playstyles. Perfectly fine position to take. The passion with which you take such a position is fun; I'm enjoying it.
Absolutely wrong. Care to prove it? If yes, I can easily demonstrate how weak parties lose to even weak encounters. If no, stop talking.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589656Absolutely wrong. Care to prove it? If yes, I can easily demonstrate how weak parties lose to even weak encounters. If no, stop talking.
Is this one of those one liner 'fuck you' comments you are hoping to snag other people with?
But please do demonstrate this. It would cement the fact that the party's performance and individual character performance are entirely dependent on the GM, no matter how HARDCORE those players think they are. It's just 'Mother may I', all the way down.
Because I can turn around and easily demonstrate how a 'weak' party can manage even 'tough' encounters. Protip: Engaging in combat and killing everything isn't the only metric for 'winning'.
Quote from: StormBringer;589657Is this one of those one liner 'fuck you' comments you are hoping to snag other people with?
But please do demonstrate this. It would cement the fact that the party's performance and individual character performance are entirely dependent on the GM, no matter how HARDCORE those players think they are. It's just 'Mother may I', all the way down.
Because I can turn around and easily demonstrate how a 'weak' party can manage even 'tough' encounters. Protip: Engaging in combat and killing everything isn't the only metric for 'winning'.
It is an invitation for him to prove it or to go away. Now you're not him. Would you like to prove it? If so, bring it.
I can already tell you what will happen though. The party will be restricted to weak classes. The enemies will also be restricted to weak classes. Said enemies will still rofflestomp the party... even if they play well. If they play badly (say Rogue scouts, Fighter thinks he's a tank, whatever) it will be even worse.
But by all means, come at me. Prove me wrong. If you can. Do you accept the gauntlet?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589623If you wanted to bring up competitive games you'd bring up the relevant ones. You know, the skill based ones, not just pass gear check to win.
WOW is where the action is for raiding. PVP, you got a point; PVE, no.
QuoteThat said, you're right that outside of tabletop people are much less stupid about effective play as they don't have these bizarre blocks against it. But that's the only thing you were right about.
No, the common tabletop RPG user
does not give a shit about that, on both sides of the screen. This is your disconnect; you think it matters, and we know that it doesn't. That's not the driving motive to play TRPGs, and it never has been.
QuoteIn order to continue with your whole making effective D&D characters is stupid spiel you must first explain why any real person would not choose to be good at a job that has a high chance of killing them and yet continue doing that job. As you will be unable to do so, and roleplaying is about portraying a fictional character as if they are a real person, you must then accept that real roleplaying is optimizing.
No, I need do no such thing. I do not accept your premise, and I rebut your presumption. The common TRPG user is there to socialize--it is a pastime more than anything else--and not to win a contest. Your position is, far and away, in the minority and the history of the business as well as the hobby demonstrates this handily.
QuoteThat said, I have players to play with. The problem is the good ones are so extremely rare.
I disbelieve you.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589646Is this a serious question?
Yes. It was. Thank you for the answer.
Mr GC dared people somewhere to come up with ONE instance where basket weaving could actually be a skill relevant to the D&D game and provide a valuable contribution to the party's actions in the game. I'm just too damn lazy to fine-comb the whole thread to find it back, but without further ado, I propose to you... the Woven Dungeon.
The PCs are getting involved in the search of people that disappeared in Ptolus.
After investigating the whereabouts of these different individuals who have different ways of life and means of income (some of them delvers, some of them servants for the noble houses of Ptolus, some of them working for the courts, etc.) they determine the one common element between all these individuals: they have all been dealing with a strange merchant family going by the name of the Panienari (think the fantasy equivalent of the Giovanni, or an ancient Italian Renaissance family dealing with specific crafted goods, cunning, political etc).
Osman Panienari is the patriarch of the house which specializes in the production of woven goods, particularly baskets of the most exquisite and exotic nature. A visit at the Manor House of the Panienari family reveals it is in distress: there is something wrong going on with the household, but they are not open about it, and don't want any visitor stepping beyond the meeting hall of the manor.
Showing some skill in the craft of weaving, and basket weaving in particular, will grant a greater amount of trust amongst the Panienari. They are in such distress, however, that any diplomatic attempt is unlikely to make them helpful in any way, since the revelation of their secret would probably mean the end of House Panienari.
Osman Panienari and his daughters are in fact practioners of magic and experiment with their craft and various dweomers of ancient, forgotten origins. One such experiment allowed them to create a sentient woven art piece made of different dried leaves of Black Lotuses and even more exotic fabrics. This basket, as it were, is a potent artifact that sucks souls into its inner core which replicates the reality it makes contact with. It grows and becomes like a tumor slowly growing within the manor, catching individuals, objects, sucking into its self entire rooms which it then recreates in its own psyche, creating a "dungeon" as it were constituted of all the woven strands it is made of and growing as it learns and gains more and more conscience of the unknown universe it inhabits.
To solve the dire situation in which House Panienari has put itself, the adventurers have several means, amongst which they could offer themselves as victims to the creature and be sucked by it to then make their way into the Woven Dungeon to find the souls which have been taken within the artifact and liberate them by then undoing the core of its making, undoing the strands as it were, to break its inner core being, or could create their own versions of the creature empowered by the Panienari family so that one would come in contact with the other and create an alternate, compound reality allowing the PCs to travel from one to the other without the deleterious effects of the possession that occurs if they are just taken by the artifact as its prisoners.
Along the way, the PCs will have to confront ancient spirits of the fabrics that made the original basket, confront souls that are too far removed from reality to be effectively saved, and battle all manners of sentient dust and other miniature threats (now gigantic, as they are adventuring through the beast) that have been elevated to various degrees of conscience by the malvolent will of the artifact they came in contact with.
Conclusion: here is a scenario where the Craft (Basket Weaving) skill could have an important impact on the game, from gaining access to the Panienari mansion in the first place to understanding the problem, potentially dealing with it by crafting the PCs' own artifact, confronting the woven tumor itself and understand the features of the Woven Dungeon within... here you go. I just created a scenario where Craft (Basket Weaving) is actually relevant and could significantly help the party.
Hey, Mr. GC? You fail at imagination, dude.
Quote from: Benoist;589664Mr GC dared people somewhere to come up with ONE instance where basket weaving could actually be a skill relevant to the D&D game and provide a valuable contribution to the party's actions in the game.
I somehow doubt Mr GC has actually ever met a single player who took basketweaving as a skill.
Mainly because it's not offered as a skill in D&D...
The term was taken from an essay in FATE 2E entitled "How does basketweaving help my swordplay?" And seems to have been entirely distorted by people who didn't read that essay, and are looking very hard for some "group" to rally against, because ...life's no fun without invented antagonsists. Might as well call Basketweavers terrorists and get it over with.
Another idea someone shared on facebook: "Party raids kobold warren in a reed-choked swamp, finds thousands of copper pieces, has to get the loot back to town. BAM." - Steve S.
Another one of mine: "Likewise, putting some item back together using the Basket Weaving skill to solve some riddle or open some area in a dungeon."
Another one: constructing a woven net to stop the progression of some growing threat in the dungeon, an ooze of some kind that cannot be stopped by any other means but has to be contained, etc.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;589662WOW is where the action is for raiding. PVP, you got a point; PVE, no.
Apparently, you don't understand what competition is. Competition is competitive. Competitive would be something like Starcraft if you're going to use a Blizzard example, but never WoW, or any MMO.
QuoteNo, the common tabletop RPG user does not give a shit about that, on both sides of the screen. This is your disconnect; you think it matters, and we know that it doesn't. That's not the driving motive to play TRPGs, and it never has been.
Correction: The common tabletop user is constantly shielded by Ignoratio and therefore thinks it is unnecessary. The moment D&D is played instead of pretend, bodies hit the floor.
QuoteNo, I need do no such thing. I do not accept your premise, and I rebut your presumption. The common TRPG user is there to socialize--it is a pastime more than anything else--and not to win a contest. Your position is, far and away, in the minority and the history of the business as well as the hobby demonstrates this handily.
I disbelieve you.
You offer no proof then? Very well, then you have no further words to say to me.
Quote from: Benoist;589664Mr GC dared people somewhere to come up with ONE instance where basket weaving could actually be a skill relevant to the D&D game and provide a valuable contribution to the party's actions in the game. I'm just too damn lazy to fine-comb the whole thread to find it back, but without further ado, I propose to you... the Woven Dungeon.
Except for that part about me not saying that. Yeah, see how my posts don't mention literal basket weaving and specifically say this isn't about literal basket weaving?
You keep chasing them shadow demons (lowercase, not proper name).
QuoteHey, Mr. GC? You fail at imagination, dude.
Hey, Benoist? You fail at reading comprehension, dude.
It has started to rain and the character weaves a simple hat from reeds to keep dry.
The lair of the Black Dragon is in a swamp and the dragon has lived there so long that the local vegetation has become somewhat resistant to the Black Dragon's acid. The best armor that you can use against its breath weapon can be woven from the reeds and grasses, it might just save your life.
A Paladin is tested by their deity. Manifesting as an old woman struggling to fix her thatched roof, the deity asks the passing Paladin for help. If the Paladin ignores her and does not assist in fixing the thatched roof of her hut, then they are not charitable enough to be in service to that god as a Paladin and stripped of their powers.
Quote from: jeff37923;589680It has started to rain and the character weaves a simple hat from reeds to keep dry.
The lair of the Black Dragon is in a swamp and the dragon has lived there so long that the local vegetation has become somewhat resistant to the Black Dragon's acid. The best armor that you can use against its breath weapon can be woven from the reeds and grasses, it might just save your life.
I'm going to stop your sperg tangent to LOL.
Dragon breath is weak, and black dragon breath especially so. If you're going into a fight with a black dragon, and are worried about "its breath weapon" on any level, you have far, far worse problems... like perhaps, the actual kind of basket weaving, causing your party to suck so badly the dragon's weakest attack by far can kill you.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589684I'm going to stop your sperg tangent to LOL.
Why? Are you getting overwhelmed by the number of examples that demonstrate how wrong you are?
Nope, but I would like people to stop sperging about literal basket weaving when that's never been what this is about and so people are having to do some fucking contortionist bullshit to try and find a position that makes them seem correct.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589688Nope, but I would like people to stop sperging about literal basket weaving when that's never been what this is about and so people are having to do some fucking contortionist bullshit to try and find a position that makes them seem correct.
Have you considered that maybe it is you who are engaged in the mental gymnastics here to justify your position?
Quote from: jeff37923;589689Have you considered that maybe it is you who are engaged in the mental gymnastics here to justify your position?
That'd require my position to be somehow uncertain. As this is something that has been proven beyond all doubt for myself and others...
Still waiting on people to take me up on what I actually said. Namely weak classes vs weak classes = party loses anyways.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589688Nope, but I would like people to stop sperging about literal basket weaving when that's never been what this is about and so people are having to do some fucking contortionist bullshit to try and find a position that makes them seem correct.
Maybe one should just refrain from calling people names after graduating from junior high, and then ther wouldn't be the need to defend the name-calling as if it in someway matters .
Quote from: Mr. GC;589690Still waiting on people to take me up on what I actually said. Namely weak classes vs weak classes = party loses anyways.
I don't play RPGs with classes.
Quote from: TristramEvans;589694Maybe one should just refrain from calling people names after graduating from junior high.
You're arguing with a man with a very myopic view of what competition is, and does not comprehend why TRPGs don't fit that ridiculously narrow view. Just shun him.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589688Nope, but I would like people to stop sperging about literal basket weaving when that's never been what this is about and so people are having to do some fucking contortionist bullshit to try and find a position that makes them seem correct.
As I said: you fail at imagination. Additionally, if you can't extrapolate to other skills, any skills, based on the few specific examples which have been thrown at you, I'm forced to conclude you are also failing at basic Logic 101.
At the end of this conversation we'll have a whole cursus made out just for you to get up to speed with normal people with standard communication skills, an imagination to work with and logic with which they might extrapolate... isn't life wonderful?
PS: warning. There might be an actual argument amidst the sarcasm, i.e. that you might extrapolate on the examples involving the basket weaving skill to extend their sustaining logic to all kinds of skills and abilities in the game.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589656Absolutely wrong. Care to prove it? If yes, I can easily demonstrate how weak parties lose to even weak encounters. If no, stop talking.
Hey cool! Alrighty. I do lots of gaming with one player.
Lets say PC is a kid living on the streets of Greyhawk. Ostensibly the lesser member of a street gang, picked on by the bigger kids but the gang leader has a soft spot for him. Gimpy Rogue build who schlubbed Dex in favor of decent Intelligence and Wisdom. I'm DM, time for the game to start.
Word has gotten around that one of the gang members has come up missing. The other boys went off looking for him, but didn't let you tag along. Whatcha wanna do?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589659But by all means, come at me. Prove me wrong. If you can. Do you accept the gauntlet?
You really, really just don't get it, do you?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589656I can easily demonstrate how weak parties lose to even weak encounters.
That is called a 'claim'. Those require evidence. If you do not have the 'evidence', it's best not to make a 'claim'. If you rush on ahead and make a 'claim' anyway in the hopes that bluster will carry the day for you, it behooves you to then gather the 'evidence' to support it as quickly as possible. If you continue to neglect the 'evidence' that others say you need to present, that doesn't mean those others have to prove anything. It means you have utterly failed to present a sound or cogent argument. Which means you fail over all, and don't get to then claim you didn't. In other words, other people don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right.
Claims require evidence; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.I am sure you are going to start wailing that these demands aren't made of everyone else here. That's because the rest of us are fairly careful about presenting our claims as preferences and not as objective facts.
So, demonstrate how a weak party can lose to a weak encounter. You made the claim, you promised the demonstration, the stage is yours to command.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589690Still waiting on people to take me up on what I actually said. Namely weak classes vs weak classes = party loses anyways.
I've 'taken you up' on this numerous times: There are no weak classes, only weak players. If the only game you can play is 20Int Wizard with massive meta-magic feats and every possible spell available, then you are not only playing GM Pity with numbers, you aren't even taking the training wheels off. Not exceptionally hardcore play.
Quote from: Old One Eye;589716Hey cool! Alrighty. I do lots of gaming with one player.
Lets say PC is a kid living on the streets of Greyhawk. Ostensibly the lesser member of a street gang, picked on by the bigger kids but the gang leader has a soft spot for him. Gimpy Rogue build who schlubbed Dex in favor of decent Intelligence and Wisdom. I'm DM, time for the game to start.
Word has gotten around that one of the gang members has come up missing. The other boys went off looking for him, but didn't let you tag along. Whatcha wanna do?
I don't think you understand how this game works. See, when you're called upon to prove something about a party/character, and you agree. That means you're the character. It doesn't mean I play the useless gimp.
Quote from: StormBringer;589717I am sure you are going to start wailing that these demands aren't made of everyone else here. That's because the rest of us are fairly careful about presenting our claims as preferences and not as objective facts.
So, demonstrate how a weak party can lose to a weak encounter. You made the claim, you promised the demonstration, the stage is yours to command.
Ok. I have a scenario pre written. You bring the party, I show how they lose to it. Deal? If so, I'll post the rules in a new thread.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589722Ok. I have a scenario pre written. You bring the party, I show how they lose to it. Deal? If so, I'll post the rules in a new thread.
That isn't demonstrating. Lay out what you have and we'll talk about it; otherwise you are either stalling or blustering again. We aren't going to spiral into "See? He won't even take my challenge, I won lol!". Post your 'weak' party, post your 'weak' monsters and we'll discuss it. Also, I am sure there are at least several people here that can accurately translate 3.5 characters into 1st or 2nd Edition, and we can also see how this isn't a problem across editions.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589722I don't think you understand how this game works. See, when you're called upon to prove something about a party/character, and you agree. That means you're the character. It doesn't mean I play the useless gimp.
So, are you agreeing that a poorly built Rogue is a fine build with which to play the role of a child urchin on the mean fantasy streets?
Or are you claiming that your roleplaying skills are insufficient to be able to play the role of a child urchin on the mean fantasy streets?
Or are you agreeing with pretty much everyone else on this thread, which is that different playstyles exist, of which, yours is but one style and playing the role of a child urchin is another style?
Or is your definition of roleplaying so restricted that you would not even consider playing the role of a child urchin to be roleplaying?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589722Ok. I have a scenario pre written. You bring the party, I show how they lose to it. Deal? If so, I'll post the rules in a new thread.
Sweet red beans on a bed of rice! I'll bring the pre-built 1st level Fighter and 1st level Rogue from the 3.5 DMG. You bring the new thread.
Quote from: Old One Eye;589726So, are you agreeing that a poorly built Rogue is a fine build with which to play the role of a child urchin on the mean fantasy streets?
Or are you claiming that your roleplaying skills are insufficient to be able to play the role of a child urchin on the mean fantasy streets?
Or are you agreeing with pretty much everyone else on this thread, which is that different playstyles exist, of which, yours is but one style and playing the role of a child urchin is another style?
Or is your definition of roleplaying so restricted that you would not even consider playing the role of a child urchin to be roleplaying?
I think Risus would blow this fellow's tiny little mind.
Quote from: StormBringer;589724That isn't demonstrating. Lay out what you have and we'll talk about it; otherwise you are either stalling or blustering again. We aren't going to spiral into "See? He won't even take my challenge, I won lol!". Post your 'weak' party, post your 'weak' monsters and we'll discuss it. Also, I am sure there are at least several people here that can accurately translate 3.5 characters into 1st or 2nd Edition, and we can also see how this isn't a problem across editions.
You mean so you can build characters specifically to beat that one specific challenge (and likely still fail)?
Nope. Either you accept and build the party or you don't and stop talking.
Quote from: Old One Eye;589727Sweet red beans on a bed of rice! I'll bring the pre-built 1st level Fighter and 1st level Rogue from the 3.5 DMG. You bring the new thread.
Who said it is level 1? But fine, I'll play.
Quote from: jibbajibba;589550The basic break here is a playstyle one.
You think that a good game creates characters who are all competant in their chosen niche and can contribute fully to the scenario. You also seem to believe that a game like D&D has a narrow number of scenarios and that most of those will involve in some form killing things and taking their stuff. You see it as a duty of each player to create a character that can pull their weight in the presumed game paradigm. Right so far?
I don't think DnD has a narrow number of "scenarios". I think there are innumerable scenarios but when I refer to "stuff" you can do in DnD I use a list of very broad categories. Exploration can mean any number of things but typically anything that involves finding stuff, travel, or similar things is lumped under that. The categories aren't even mutually exclusive. Both intrigue and Diplomatic situations will involve use of various social skills (diplomacy, bluff, Sense Motive, etc).
As for DnD,in general, I believe it supports, advertises, and pushes people to adventure (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adventure).
QuoteMr CG thinks
Gonna stop you right there. I stopped reading GC's posts quite a while ago.
QuoteBoth of these are just playstyle choices.
I think that in fact as its a roleplaying game taking suboptimal choices due to roleplay reasons is good roleplay even if it results in a TPK. I also think that a game that allows you to create characters of each class that are well balanced for a particualr game paradignm is a good one, but I don't want the game to actively preclude me from making suboptimal choices if I want to. Not every superhero needs to be superman there is room to have fun playing wonder woman or even Batman.
Eliminating "suboptimal" choices isn't feasibly possible in any game that gives you a choice in what you do. What I want to eliminate is punishing people for adding flavor to their characters (at least as far as this thread goes). Making suboptimal choices is still a thing that's going to happen and I'm not going to go out of my way to prevent it. In fact there was a TGD thread where I said just that. Despite people here thinking the contrary I actually like people adding flavorful choices to their character and I think that doing so should be encouraged. While you and a select few may find "fun" in deliberately playing against the grain and making characters that have sacrificed being effective for flavor there are, I'd wager, a lot more players unwilling to make that sacrifice. For a game to promote a playstyle where you do have the warrior who happens to know how to weave baskets I present an option where the warrior doesn't have to sacrifice his "warriorness" to weave baskets as a past time. This, logically, would get more people to pick up background stuff because there's no reason not to.
QuoteI can see that you want a perfect system and you are trying to proselytize how that system might look and play but you have to understand that there are entirely other ways of playing from the OSR player skill with minimal input from the character to a heavy roleplaying game. D&D can cope with all of these types of games. You must realize that and that the people here whatever their personal foibles and sometimes blinkered view on the reality of their favorite games do have favorite games and have had a fucking lot of years to decide what their favorite playstyle is so its unlikely that you pointing out that their math doesn't add up or the game doesn't actually work like that is just going to annoy them. You would be better off trying to see what it is about their favorite style that they enjoy and trying to incorporate that into your homebrew game.
I completely understand that people are likely to lean on feelings (some of nostalgia, fun, what have you) when deciding what they do and what they like. I like 3rd ed best. In fact I'm teaching my gf along with a select few others how to play pathfinder. That favoritism does not prevent me from pointing out, and talking about, flaws in the system that I just don't like, don't mind, or don't believe are flaws. I don't think liking something or even disliking something is grounds to avoid critical analysis of it.
Here you go. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24282)
Quote from: Mr. GC;589730Nope. Either you accept and build the party or you don't and stop talking.
This is what I referred to a couple of posts ago. No one has to accept your challenge. You don't have the evidence to present, so your statement is false, and your conclusion is invalid.
Speaking of invalid, having taken a look at your 'scenario', I will re-iterate here: the conditions you have laid out for the party to win amount to having to play pretty much a perfect game. Even the slightest degree of loss and you are calling an 'automatic loss'. In other words, you have so little faith in your own argument, you have to stack the odds entirely in your favour to even have a chance of prevailing.
Weaksauce all around. Take the training wheels off your magical tea partying and we will have something to talk about. Also, brush up on the basics of how to hold even a casual discussion; things like 'burden of proof' and whose responsibility it is, basic evidence gathering and presentation, understanding the claims another person is making, and how to avoid presenting fallacies as though they are valid techniques (ie, the "prove me wrong" appeal to ignorance).
You are on two different forums where a high number of people are saying you are just about dead wrong in almost everything you say, and that you are being a douchebag about it. It might be a good time to step back and consider that it probably isn't everyone else. There is a really, really good chance that
you are at the root of the problems you are having.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589734Here you go. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24282)
No blind links please.
What are we supposed to be contending?
A weak party can lose to a weak encounter?
A weak party will always lose to a weak encounter?
What is the definition of weak for either of those?
It's a link to this site right after saying I'd make a thread. But ok.
Quote from: CRKrueger;589785What are we supposed to be contending?
A weak party can lose to a weak encounter?
A weak party will always lose to a weak encounter?
What is the definition of weak for either of those?
Weak is defined by the terms in the linked thread.
As for why the victory conditions are as they are... surely anyone here is not really arguing that if half or more of the party dies
every single day they are a viable party?
Quote from: Mr. GC;589800Weak is defined by the terms in the linked thread.
As for why the victory conditions are as they are... surely anyone here is not really arguing that if half or more of the party dies every single day they are a viable party?
You are not showing that. You are possibly showing that half of the party
could die in a highly contrived white-room encounter series.
Again, all you are really showing is that your style of play is just as dependant on 'DM pity' as you claim everyone else's is. I am sure you refuse to admit that, or perhaps you really can't see it. So let's flip the conditions: you make the strongest, most optimized party you can, and we will see if they can survive a 'standard adventuring day' against a series of encounters someone else makes up.
Quote from: StormBringer;589839You are not showing that. You are possibly showing that half of the party could die in a highly contrived white-room encounter series.
Again, all you are really showing is that your style of play is just as dependant on 'DM pity' as you claim everyone else's is. I am sure you refuse to admit that, or perhaps you really can't see it. So let's flip the conditions: you make the strongest, most optimized party you can, and we will see if they can survive a 'standard adventuring day' against a series of encounters someone else makes up.
And yet, for all your empty claims I see zero attempts for you to prove what you say.
Come at me Ironybringer.
Quote from: Mr. GC;589840And yet, for all your empty claims I see zero attempts for you to prove what you say.
Ok, you simply don't get it, or this is the only way you have ever had a discussion. Let me put it another way:
You like to smear feces all over yourself before you engage in fornication with farm animals. You are a shit-stained goat-fucker.
Prove me wrong, Goat-fucker.
QuoteCome at me Ironybringer.
Bluster doesn't work online, especially when you follow up with a feeble insult that is less effective than 'poopy-head'. Every time you use 'Ironybringer' as though it were the most devastating personal insult imaginable, you more solidly confirm your age at around 13-15yrs.
You didn't take my suggestions before, let's see if any of these stick:
Mr Gimpy Cock
Mr Giant Cocksucker
Mr GigaCockbite
Mr Gaping Cockholster
Mr Gaptoothed Chav
Mr Gigantic Cuntweasel
Mr Greasy Cunt
Mr Galsome Chuffer
Mr Gouty Crotch
Mr Gloppy Cowshit
Mr Gunky Choad
Mr Gangly Clusterfuck
Mr Geic Chud
Mr Galeated Cattywumpus
Mr Grubby Conkey
It's not terribly difficult to find a decent set of words that combine to something that at least looks like you are trying to insult someone. I mean, you may have well used 'Dangling-Participle Bringer', which would have at least made it appear you know English grammar fairly well.
Quote from: MGuy;589149He can do those things but if he's more worried about resisting mind affects, attracting followers, and reading more languages why isn't he just a cleric?
Because he doesn't want to dick around with gods and spells? Because maybe the last fighter the player had got charmed and buttfucked by an ogress-witch with a vorpal strap-on because of low Wisdom? Because the player wants the kind of fighter who, can start gaining loyal followers before reaching high level so he can hit the ground running when it's time to set up his own domain? Or how about "just to be different"?
QuoteThere is nothing that being a fighter does for the concept of knowing more languages, resisting "stuff" etc, that simply being a cleric doesn't give. I'm not really sure how "being a psion" works in earlier editions but if it isn't something you can bank on (which the way you suggest it here it is not) then it isn't worth reinvesting points into things that don't make you better at "being a fighter".
The ability to use any weapon and to better at fighting when push comes to shove.
QuoteThe problem with "What if" situations like this is that for every "it worked out" you can come up with it could also "not work out". There could be any number of factors that can make you choosing to specialize in javelins for no reason into something that was simply a waste. What if there wasn't that much combat? What if someone else was in the party who was better at using javelins than you? What if there were no javelins? I could go on but such a thing is useless.
Let's play odds here:
Fighter 1 has taken the usual skills (sword, bow, dagger) that most other (A)D&D fighters select. This means that when magic treasure is divided, Fighter 1 has to worry about competing with any other fighters in the group who are also skilled with those weapons.
Fighter 2 has taken the calculated risk of selecting javelin, flail and spear because he doesn't want to compete with other PCs for the more popular choices.
Which way is better? I can't say for sure because so much depends on the kind of game the DM is running.
QuoteAnd again, if you didn't know Tamil or could've communicated with him in another fashion (which isn't an unreasonable thing to assume), then the adventure would have still gone on whether or not you would've had the ability to speak Tamil. The adventure might have been different but it would've still gone on. Plus who's to say some other bad npc might not have been able to pick up on Tamil?
You mean there's no way for certain that an RPG will unfold as you had planned? OH NOES!
Quote"If" and that's a pretty big if. To counter I'll give some of my own: What if that 0-level men at arms isn't useful to the group?What if his low saves/hp only makes him a liability? What if by the act of playing as that men at arms you let down the group and cause other members of your team to die? What if the other players aren't up for having a game where one of the players purposefully gimps themselves for no reason?
Aren't you a little old to still be wetting the bed? If it's that bad, there's nothing to prevent the other characters from dumping the dead weight.
QuoteThese questions don't really matter, because these are all hypothetical. I have better questions though. Is there any reason that you don't think the game would be better separating "lesser" skills than more relevant skills? How is the game served better by actively punishing players for choosing to pick up things like basket weaving instead of perception?
First of all, "Basket Weaving" strikes me as a strawman and I find it hard to believe that such a skill is really included in any major games. Some skills might be more useful than others, but that depends on the game, the GM running it, and the resourcefulness of the player and character.
Quote from: jibbajibba;589251The most ironic thing is the people who critised me for playing 1e characters who didn't follow the 10 foot pole professional adventurer paradigm which relies on player skill are now in an argument with people who are saying you need to pick a character that maximises their numbers through player skill.
No, you were ridiculed because of your smugly stupid belief that deliberately choosing to have a PC who refused to bring useful gear along on an expedition when it's available makes for better role-playing.
QuoteBoth paradigms are about player skill trumping role play the Stormwind Falacy I believe it was flagged as :)
One says you should always take a bag of flour with you becuase you can use it to identify and track invisible creatures
The other says you should always make sure by 4th level you have selected an item or a skill that allows you to identify invisible opponents.
Apples and oranges. For example, let's say you're going on a camping trip:
Camper1 is highly skilled at hunting, building fires by rubbing sticks together, knowing which wild berries are safe to eat and so on.
Camper2 knows little or nothing about any of that stuff, but did have the good sense to bring along a lighter, a flashlight and other handy gear to help make up for his lack of specialized skills.
Camper3 has skills in the outdoors AND brings along handy gear
Camper4 is a useless fucktard who thinks it's cool to be out camping without the tiniest clue of what to do, and without so much as a book of matches.
Now Camper4 might be useful to the group if he or she has skills that might come into play later on. But anybody running a PC who seldom if ever contributes anything valuable to the group has only themselves to blame when the rest of the group decides "enough already!" and gets rid of the useless character.
QuoteTo me these are both the same thing. Where as I might well say ... I'm a low level fighter with low inteligence and low wisdom...what's an invisible opponent look like?
If the character is supposed to be stupid, that's something else.
Quote from: RandallS;589264I've been playing D&D since 1975 and I can think of a good number of cowardly or combat-incompetent characters who who survived for many levels by avoiding direct combat as much as possible. And I've never been in a group of players who booted any character for not being useful enough in combat -- or any other part of the game for that matter. Players have occasionally be booted for being jerks, but never for not playing competent-enough characters. If your games run that way, fine -- but not all games do.
It's not really necessary to boot a useless PC -monsters and traps usually take care of that. I've seen a number of cases where a useless PC was left to die, or nor resurrected.
Quote from: Elfdart;589872Because he doesn't want to dick around with gods and spells? Because maybe the last fighter the player had got charmed and buttfucked by an ogress-witch with a vorpal strap-on because of low Wisdom? Because the player wants the kind of fighter who, can start gaining loyal followers before reaching high level so he can hit the ground running when it's time to set up his own domain? Or how about "just to be different"?
That's all fine and dandy. Then the fighter finds out that he's not good at fighting and gets gangbanged by the ogress-witch's regular guards. He gets to find out that there is nothing mechanically stopping him from raising an army by talking to people or just being awesome.
Now I'd like to take an aside here to mention how ironic it is that people point out the "gets an army" ability as something special when they cry out how a character is more than their character sheet. Unlike the uncertainty of getting a weapon on a random chart apparently letting them get an army at random is too much s while the magic pants and stick the fighter needs to compete should not be put on their character sheets getting an army should.
QuoteThe ability to use any weapon and to better at fighting when push comes to shove.
I don't know. Some posters more familiar with earlier editions than I have the cleric being only marginally weaker than the fighter at the lower levels and after that he can buff himself to victory(if he doesn't just cast stuff down instead).
QuoteLet's play odds here:
Fighter 1 has taken the usual skills (sword, bow, dagger) that most other (A)D&D fighters select. This means that when magic treasure is divided, Fighter 1 has to worry about competing with any other fighters in the group who are also skilled with those weapons.
Fighter 2 has taken the calculated risk of selecting javelin, flail and spear because he doesn't want to compete with other PCs for the more popular choices.
Which way is better? I can't say for sure because so much depends on the kind of game the DM is running.
Except that you weren't a fighter in the scenario you laid out.
QuoteYou mean there's no way for certain that an RPG will unfold as you had planned? OH NOES!
Nice job at missing the point.
QuoteAren't you a little old to still be wetting the bed? If it's that bad, there's nothing to prevent the other characters from dumping the dead weight.
And there it is again. Look, I know you can drop the dead weight. Remember that we're arguing about people specifically
making themselves dead weight purposefully.
QuoteFirst of all, "Basket Weaving" strikes me as a strawman and I find it hard to believe that such a skill is really included in any major games. Some skills might be more useful than others, but that depends on the game, the GM running it, and the resourcefulness of the player and character.
How is "basket weaving" a strawman in a thread with that as the title? I have a feeling at this point that you might've lost touch with what was being talked about.
QuoteNo, you were ridiculed because of your smugly stupid belief that deliberately choosing to have a PC who refused to bring useful gear along on an expedition when it's available makes for better role-playing.
How is this significantly different from someone choosing a PC who refuses to get useful abilities then expecting that PC t go on expeditions?
QuoteApples and oranges. For example, let's say you're going on a camping trip:
Camper1 is highly skilled at hunting, building fires by rubbing sticks together, knowing which wild berries are safe to eat and so on.
Camper2 knows little or nothing about any of that stuff, but did have the good sense to bring along a lighter, a flashlight and other handy gear to help make up for his lack of specialized skills.
Camper3 has skills in the outdoors AND brings along handy gear
Camper4 is a useless fucktard who thinks it's cool to be out camping without the tiniest clue of what to do, and without so much as a book of matches.
Now Camper4 might be useful to the group if he or she has skills that might come into play later on. But anybody running a PC who seldom if ever contributes anything valuable to the group has only themselves to blame when the rest of the group decides "enough already!" and gets rid of the useless character.
The irony of this point demands that I do this:
Player1 is highly skilled at hunting, building fires by rubbing sticks together, knowing which wild berries are safe to eat and so on.
Player2 knows little or nothing about any of that stuff, but did have the good sense to bring along a fire magic, a torch and other handy gear to help make up for his lack of specialized skills.
Player3 has skills in the outdoors AND brings along handy gear.
Player4 is a useless basketweaver who thinks it's cool to be out adventuring without the tiniest clue of what to do, and without so much as a dagger.
Now Player4 might be useful to the group if he or she has skills that might come into play later on. But anybody running a PC who seldom if ever contributes anything valuable to the group has only themselves to blame when the rest of the group decides "enough already!" and gets rid of the useless character.
That took very minor editing and that is what you have been arguing
for. You've been arguing that player4 should be allowed to participate.
QuoteIt's not really necessary to boot a useless PC -monsters and traps usually take care of that. I've seen a number of cases where a useless PC was left to die, or nor resurrected.
Why do you think it is worth ensuring that a person
can make a completely useless character? Why do you think it is bad to make the distinction between skills that are purely background things and skills that have a wide range of uses/applications?
TL: DR: If you get nothing else out of this post but disagreement at least explain this to me: What exactly is bad about giving away Craft: Woven Basket for free?
Like I said both are player skill trumping RP.
If the result is that both groups would dump someone because they didn't optimise or they din't pick skills and equipment that fitted the mission (not optimising ?) then both positions are the same.
Let's refrain from useless name-tossing please, lest Pundit get wrathful.
Quote from: MGuy;589878That's all fine and dandy. Then the fighter finds out that he's not good at fighting and gets gangbanged by the ogress-witch's regular guards. He gets to find out that there is nothing mechanically stopping him from raising an army by talking to people or just being awesome.
TL: DR: If you get nothing else out of this post but disagreement at least explain this to me: What exactly is bad about giving away Craft: Woven Basket for free?
I can see the logic of your position.
If you were saying crafting basket weaving is a free skills you can justify through background choice then that kind of works but it depends on how much stuff falls into that category.
Like I said up thread there are 2 risks. I will try to explain it again in a clearer way.
In 4e everyone emerges good at combat, maybe not optimised but good at combat. Some Characters in the source material are not good at combat.
So in your skills system its fine if you can trade combat skills for things you deem worthy but if the worthless is free who determines that. You can allow the DM to do it on a as needs basis but I can see a certain type of GM saying diplomacy, ettiquette, singing etc are all worthless.
What is to stop a certain type of player from taking expertise in all your free skills Crafter: Basket Weaver , Crafter: Carpenter, Baladeer, etc etc
This happens in Amber Diceless to a degree there is no Skill System and your PC can do whatever you can justify with the GM based on your background. Now I disliked this in play so i build a skill system (its very open and diceless and PCs can pick huge numbers of skills so its pretty unique in skill system terms) because i wanted backgrounds better defined.
Now I can see that a Background system as is suggested for 5e might cover it. So you get to pick from a free list of skills if you have the right background but are you going to limit these free skills ? Now I think 5e does something that might suit you. If I understand it right all skills that might be covered in a background are abstracted to an attribute check. So if you pick a sailor background you get some useful skills like rope use and weather sense but you also get sail-making, etc etc
Quote from: jibbajibba;589884Like I said both are player skill trumping RP.
If the result is that both groups would dump someone because they didn't optimise or they din't pick skills and equipment that fitted the mission (not optimising ?) then both positions are the same.
There's a big difference between "Does not have skills relevant to the task" and "is not the best they could be at various tasks((AKA is not optimized)". I'd never really say that an unoptimized character should just stay home but I would tell someone who couldn't keep up at all on the adventure to stay home. I'd say the same to someone who could only barely do anything on the adventure. My character isn't going to put his life in the hands of someone who so clearly is not capable of handling the responsibility. Not being able to participate in combat isn't what is going to get you kicked off of team adventurer not being able to adventure is.
An aside spoilered for length and tangential nature.
Spoiler
Now for clarity reasons I'd like to mention 2 Characters I've had are relevant to this conversation:
The most relevant is a character type since I've tried to play the same character a few times but was not allowed to. I (in various games) wanted to play a character who specifically wanted to take over the world. His reasoning would depend on whether or not "evil" type characters would be allowed. Regardless one of the things I would tell the GM, Storyteller, or whatever the referee was calling him (and one time her)self is that if this character is played right I will never have to make an attack roll. The best tries I had was a Summoner in Pathfinder,a bard in 3.5, and a would be crime boss in Star Wars. I would always specifically create the character with no personal "fighting" skills and always spent time making the character charismatic and intelligent.
None of the iterations of this character had any interest in fighting stuff. They all wanted to use minions or get people on their side. They were all (except the good aligned ones) focused on lying, cheating, and diplomancing any potential allies they could get onto their side. They would use any combination of manipulation and intimidation to do so. They were useful on adventures and in combat not because they could fight good but because they usually brought an entourage, could mind control people, or flood combat with minions(summons).
Of the three versions of this character type I've mentioned only the Summoner had an ability set that actually "geared" them for combat. The Star Wars character had a personal rifle and otherwise bought, stole, or manipulated others into guarding him. The Bard just buffed or used spells and abilities (along with any sucker he could get)to fight. There's is seriously a lot of utility in being able to manipulate and summon.
The next Character is Bastion Mountain Hopper. He was a Gnome Barbarian mechanics wise. In character was a Mountain Climbing enthusiast. To the other players he was the damage dealer. Mood wise he was comic relief. He was very clearly suboptimal and I build him specifically to be an extra pair of hands. Mechanically he was pretty damn strong at starting levels and gradually fell be hind into near uselessness as our levels rose. He became a sunder king and maintained only marginal usefulness because of his ability to smash important stuff (that and my GM for that game did not know the game as well as I did and couldn't drum up a challenge that I couldn't participate in). However, no matter how high level he got I never let his enthusiasm for climbing mountains disappear and I willingly paid into having a high climb and jump check. Now I know that climb gets useless fast and that jump is pointless considering his height (and because flight/teleport dominates the game at higher level play) but I paid into them because that's what he did.
Why would I do it? Several reasons. The most important was that I knew the GM did not know the game well so I made the safe assumption that I could make this character as I did and fall into the relative power level of the party (which is to say that the party was pretty damn weak). For two I really didn't want to shine too hard when we had 2 noobies in the game. For 3 I thought the idea was funny and it turns out that it worked. It is important to note though that while I had fun I also acknowledge that the game was on "easy mode". I acknowledge that the character choices I made were terrible for optimization. Knowing that did not stop me from enjoying myself.
I think it is important to clarify that, no I'm not saying all characters need to be able to pick up sharp pointy things or be able to blow up enemies all the time. I'm also not saying that every character need be perfectly optimized or optimized as much as possible for everything. I'm saying that there is no reason to punish people for flavor.
My "I don't wanna fight" Diplomancer guys were never punished because they were a crime lord or because I needed to max out Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, etc because those skills are so damn useful that as long as you are interacting with anything intelligent they can be used and odds are pretty damn low that you'll get stuck in a campaign where those skills aren't used. They were flavorful without sacrificing a lot of utility. They weren't good for every situation and a lot of the times the GMs took my minions away arbitrarily, forced me into situations where talking wasn't an option, or put me in places with things that could not be talked to (often times a combination of the three) but in general they were good to have around.Compare to being a professional basket weaver that isn't nearly as versatile in utility at all.
Likewise my gnome barbarian didn't hamper things despite me making him blatantly weaker than he could be because I still had plenty of skills I could provide to the party both because he was passable at combat (low level shit IMO) and because he had a number of exploration skills. Compare to a professional basket weaver who could potentially only weave a basket for the party and have hands as special abilities.
Quote from: jibbajibba;589890Like I said up thread there are 2 risks. I will try to explain it again in a clearer way.
In 4e everyone emerges good at combat, maybe not optimised but good at combat. Some Characters in the source material are not good at combat.
So in your skills system its fine if you can trade combat skills for things you deem worthy but if the worthless is free who determines that. You can allow the DM to do it on a as needs basis but I can see a certain type of GM saying diplomacy, ettiquette, singing etc are all worthless.
I'm gonna tackle this part here to avoid the risk of skipping over it later. Diplomacy (in that you use it to convince others to do stuff/like you/etc is so far away from worthless I would not be able to comprehend why anybody would think little of the ability to be able to manipulate others. If you MTP diplomatic scenarios all the time or the world is mostly filled with stuff you can't talk to/reason with would be the only situations I can think of that would warrant making those "useless". If your GM is doing the former then it is justified to lower the cost of getting them since they mean dick anyway. If its the latter then I'd seriously consider playing another game first but second the reduction in cost is similarly justified. If it isn't one of these two things (or some form of it) I would cally explain to that GM why he is mistaken about the worth of Diplomacy. Etiquette and singing I can easily see being tossed into the giveaway bin though.
QuoteWhat is to stop a certain type of player from taking expertise in all your free skills Crafter: Basket Weaver , Crafter: Carpenter, Baladeer, etc etc
Well if I were to be concerned about it as a designer then I'd institute limits. Personally though, I'm not overly concerned because I seriously wouldn't care if a PC had 2, 3 or all of the skills you listed. It doesn't unbalanced the system or have any significant effect on game play. For the sake of keeping people from making all characters experienced in everything all the time I'd probably say up to 2 occupations or make it some kind of weird 1 + Int mod (minimum 1) occupation limit.
QuoteThis happens in Amber Diceless to a degree there is no Skill System and your PC can do whatever you can justify with the GM based on your background. Now I disliked this in play so i build a skill system (its very open and diceless and PCs can pick huge numbers of skills so its pretty unique in skill system terms) because i wanted backgrounds better defined.
If the system specifically relies on the GM to arbitrate it then the GM will have to use their own judgment. I suppose my distaste for heaping that on the GMs shoulders is reason enough for me to go along and put a limit on it in the rules.
QuoteNow I can see that a Background system as is suggested for 5e might cover it. So you get to pick from a free list of skills if you have the right background but are you going to limit these free skills ? Now I think 5e does something that might suit you. If I understand it right all skills that might be covered in a background are abstracted to an attribute check. So if you pick a sailor background you get some useful skills like rope use and weather sense but you also get sail-making, etc etc
I honestly haven't been keeping up on 5e stuff to be honest so whether it works out or not is unknown and I'm going to just wait for the final product to come out before I attempt to mine it for ideas.
Quote from: MGuy;589894There's a big difference between "Does not have skills relevant to the task" and "is not the best they could be at various tasks((AKA is not optimized)". I'd never really say that an unoptimized character should just stay home but I would tell someone who couldn't keep up at all on the adventure to stay home. I'd say the same to someone who could only barely do anything on the adventure. My character isn't going to put his life in the hands of someone who so clearly is not capable of handling the responsibility. Not being able to participate in combat isn't what is going to get you kicked off of team adventurer not being able to adventure is.
What about if the other PC was your brother? Son? Lover? The guy with all the money? There are lots of In game reasons why a character might put up with a character that can't help much in terms of in game skills.
There is also the meta reason that the charaacter is fun to play with and the player is a good mate.
Quote
....climbing mountains disappear and I willingly paid into having a high climb and jump check. Now I know that climb gets useless fast and that jump is pointless considering his height (and because flight/teleport dominates the game at higher level play) but I paid into them because that's what he did.
what's odd in your examples is that though you pick Jump for a mountaineering adventurer, which is totally in character, you still need to justify it by saying that you realise that it is an unoptimised choice. If you are picking a PC focusing on background and role paly there is no need to justify choices.
QuoteI'm gonna tackle this part here to avoid the risk of skipping over it later. Diplomacy (in that you use it to convince others to do stuff/like you/etc is so far away from worthless I would not be able to comprehend why anybody would think little of the ability to be able to manipulate others. If you MTP diplomatic scenarios all the time or the world is mostly filled with stuff you can't talk to/reason with would be the only situations I can think of that would warrant making those "useless". If your GM is doing the former then it is justified to lower the cost of getting them since they mean dick anyway. If its the latter then I'd seriously consider playing another game first but second the reduction in cost is similarly justified. If it isn't one of these two things (or some form of it) I would cally explain to that GM why he is mistaken about the worth of Diplomacy. Etiquette and singing I can easily see being tossed into the giveaway bin though.
I picked diplomacy becuase most DMS woudl say its really useful, maybe too useful, but a small hardcore group, whether those that insist on doing all social stuff though direct roleplay and don;t allow diplomacy checks or whether you have a DM that dirves everything to combat.
Ettiquette increases reaction checks so is much like Diplomacy. Singing can do all sorts of thing from gettign you into teh Lord's hall to stopping the trolls from eating you to giving you a chance to learn somethign of the Castle of Dreams because of a lost song about it ... so just trying to stress how different playstyles woudl affect the relative use of skills.
QuoteWell if I were to be concerned about it as a designer then I'd institute limits. Personally though, I'm not overly concerned because I seriously wouldn't care if a PC had 2, 3 or all of the skills you listed. It doesn't unbalanced the system or have any significant effect on game play. For the sake of keeping people from making all characters experienced in everything all the time I'd probably say up to 2 occupations or make it some kind of weird 1 + Int mod (minimum 1) occupation limit.
If the system specifically relies on the GM to arbitrate it then the GM will have to use their own judgment. I suppose my distaste for heaping that on the GMs shoulders is reason enough for me to go along and put a limit on it in the rules.
You need to be careful because without limits there is a chance that abusive players could wrangle a thng out of skills you think are useless.
then there is immersion. So if your PC fighter is also an expert basket weaver and an expert tailor and an expert carpenter then how does that compare to a professional in those fields how can your PC be an expert in 3 when the typical professional NPC is a professional in just one.
Again this is all a play style thing. If your games are narrow in scope then it won't matter cos this stuff won't come up but if they are broad like a lot of my games tend to be (and here I am not being elitist my games are broad but maybe aren't deep) then the players will ensure they come up. If I hire a valet to tend to my noble fighter's wardrobe needs it makes a difference if he is just a valet or if he is Jeeves.
I honestly haven't been keeping up on 5e stuff to be honest so whether it works out or not is unknown and I'm going to just wait for the final product to come out before I attempt to mine it for ideas.[/QUOTE]
Quote from: jibbajibba;589897What about if the other PC was your brother? Son? Lover? The guy with all the money? There are lots of In game reasons why a character might put up with a character that can't help much in terms of in game skills.
There is also the meta reason that the charaacter is fun to play with and the player is a good mate.
If I care about them then I'd definitely leave them home because I don't want them getting hurt. You might as well be asking why I wouldn't let my grandma adventure with me. Now there may be some trumped up situation as to how I might end up adventuring with someone that couldn't handle themselves (McGuffin character, VIP I have to guard, etc) but usually NPCs are the ones who fill in that role. Special case scenarios are special indeed but not generally what you build a game around.
Quotewhat's odd in your examples is that though you pick Jump for a mountaineering adventurer, which is totally in character, you still need to justify it by saying that you realise that it is an unoptimised choice. If you are picking a PC focusing on background and role paly there is no need to justify choices.
Jump is bad because there's a solid ceiling for characters that sayz you can't jump all that high. After a point there is no reason to put more ranks into it or practice it any more in character. More importantly I note it because it being "suboptimal" is not some kind of word of curse that means it should never be done. I want to emphasize that there is nothing wrong with looking critically at what you enjoy.
QuoteI picked diplomacy becuase most DMS woudl say its really useful, maybe too useful, but a small hardcore group, whether those that insist on doing all social stuff though direct roleplay and don;t allow diplomacy checks or whether you have a DM that dirves everything to combat.
Ettiquette increases reaction checks so is much like Diplomacy. Singing can do all sorts of thing from gettign you into teh Lord's hall to stopping the trolls from eating you to giving you a chance to learn somethign of the Castle of Dreams because of a lost song about it ... so just trying to stress how different playstyles woudl affect the relative use of skills.
And as I said, if a GM is playing a "real role play" game who doesn't actually use Dip rolls might as well give it away for free. It would be a kick in the balls to allow someone to assume that they need it so they spend resources on it just to not use it.
QuoteYou need to be careful because without limits there is a chance that abusive players could wrangle a thng out of skills you think are useless.
then there is immersion. So if your PC fighter is also an expert basket weaver and an expert tailor and an expert carpenter then how does that compare to a professional in those fields how can your PC be an expert in 3 when the typical professional NPC is a professional in just one.
I don't mind PCs being better professionals than NPCs but I am on board with instituting limits if just to give the GM a rules backed reason to say "no you can't be all three of those".
QuoteAgain this is all a play style thing. If your games are narrow in scope then it won't matter cos this stuff won't come up but if they are broad like a lot of my games tend to be (and here I am not being elitist my games are broad but maybe aren't deep) then the players will ensure they come up. If I hire a valet to tend to my noble fighter's wardrobe needs it makes a difference if he is just a valet or if he is Jeeves.
This one is lost on me. Clarification please? What is the difference between being just a valet or being jeeves?
Quote from: MGuy;589902If I care about them then I'd definitely leave them home because I don't want them getting hurt. You might as well be asking why I wouldn't let my grandma adventure with me. Now there may be some trumped up situation as to how I might end up adventuring with someone that couldn't handle themselves (McGuffin character, VIP I have to guard, etc) but usually NPCs are the ones who fill in that role. Special case scenarios are special indeed but not generally what you build a game around.
Its quite common for me to tie a party together with stuff like relationships. If a party don't look like they will gel them i might pick up a coupel of PCs with similar backgrounds and tie them together brothers cousins etc. When i have a very weak stat PC that a player wants to run I often make that PC a child as it explains some of the low stats.
You didn't tackle the possiblity that the player is a good mate who adds enjoyment to the games and the character is fun.
QuoteJump is bad because there's a solid ceiling for characters that sayz you can't jump all that high. After a point there is no reason to put more ranks into it or practice it any more in character. More importantly I note it because it being "suboptimal" is not some kind of word of curse that means it should never be done. I want to emphasize that there is nothing wrong with looking critically at what you enjoy.
but you don;t have to look at or mention the optimal or sub-optimal nature of it here. It's like you picked something but you can't stand people to think that you didn't realise it was a sub-optimal choice. "Just in case you guys think I picked this cos it makes me tough I need to popint out that I know the limitations of it".
You don't need to make the statement we aren't going to call you on your optimisation chops just becuase you picked jump :)
QuoteThis one is lost on me. Clarification please? What is the difference between being just a valet or being jeeves?
Jeeves is the Super valet he can do anything that comes up. Gives the player a super out for any thing that shows up . You know like um ...Jeeves.....
Quote from: jibbajibba;589905You didn't tackle the possiblity that the player is a good mate who adds enjoyment to the games and the character is fun.
Mostly because this is more complicated and I've only ever encountered it when I play games, never in a game I ran. As a GM I'm pretty laissez faire when it comes to dealing with player's character choices. Unless it is something that doesn't fit for the game (playing most Monsters), something that offends me (No Gungans in any game of Star Wars I run), or something I don't think the player can handle (my gf wanted to be a wizard but I talked her out of it because it is a bit too complicated) then I mostly let people do what they want. Usually, when someone plays something like what's being described here, it is some kind of special scenario game where the players are either all in (everyone is going to play children starting off) or special case scenario where the condition of being unable to contribute meaningfully is temporary.
If pressed I'm not sure how I'd handle it other than try to see if it'll work out. I'm up for trying new things (like when my friend insisted on playing a Kender for the first time) so I'd probably permit it and gauge how I react based on the results. It has happened when I played games instead of ran them a number of times and generally those characters are given some kind of arbitrary importance and I do my best to ignore the GM favoritism and seeming plot warping to incorporate those kind of characters.
Quotebut you don;t have to look at or mention the optimal or sub-optimal nature of it here. It's like you picked something but you can't stand people to think that you didn't realise it was a sub-optimal choice. "Just in case you guys think I picked this cos it makes me tough I need to popint out that I know the limitations of it".
You don't need to make the statement we aren't going to call you on your optimisation chops just becuase you picked jump :)
I feel like I do on this board because it seems as though me pointing out certain inadequacies in a game or design is constantly misunderstood as me attacking someone's playing style.People go on to make tirades about how "denners" don't understand how
real role play works and must not be able to have fun without char op. This is honestly the first and only place where I've felt the need to clarify that this is not true. I suppose when talking to the more reasonable posters here it is not necessary.
QuoteJeeves is the Super valet he can do anything that comes up. Gives the player a super out for any thing that shows up . You know like um ...Jeeves.....
I got what you're saying now.
Quote from: MGuy;589878That took very minor editing and that is what you have been arguing for. You've been arguing that player4 should be allowed to participate.
The point I made is that what at first glance might seem like a stupid decision in creating a PC might not be so stupid after all. There could be a method to the madness.
QuoteHow is "basket weaving" a strawman in a thread with that as the title? I have a feeling at this point that you might've lost touch with what was being talked about.
Name a system where basket-weaving is an actual skill that can be selected.
QuoteHow is this significantly different from someone choosing a PC who refuses to get useful abilities then expecting that PC t go on expeditions?
Because in most systems, acquiring a stick, a bag of flour, glass beads, etc is easy, while acquiring extra skill slots or points is not. Any 0-level man-at-arms can use them, and in a world where deadly dungeons and monsters are a regular feature of the landscape, would use them if possible. There's no excuse for being unprepared unless physically prevented.
QuoteWhy do you think it is worth ensuring that a person can make a completely useless character? Why do you think it is bad to make the distinction between skills that are purely background things and skills that have a wide range of uses/applications?
You don't know it's useless PC until it has actually been played and even then it's not so clear. Many PCs created the "right" way die in humiliating fashion, after all. If you're going to have a game where PCs can be custom-built one of the inherent risks is that you'll have some PCs who excel at things that are of no use in the campaign. Get over it.
If a PC is actually being a hindrance to the rest of the party then it should be up to the PCs to decide how to deal with the offender, not the GM/DM.
AD&D 2e has Weaving as a general NWP. Not wholly restricted to baskets, but relevant. But then there's no such NWP as Spot or Listen, which as 3e skills I find just insipid.
And weaving is pretty damn useful anyway. Turn all that dangerous monster fur into luxury garments, tapestries, and drapes. Immortalize your victories for your castle walls, or just save on medieval cooling and heating bills. Be a medieval fashionista. It's also a fantastic way to disguise spun gold for smuggling. And everyone knows the juiciest gossip in town will be with the seamstress/tailors and weavers...
Oh wait, that's right, the role playing game doesn't exist beyond combat for you guys. I forgot about your myopia. Well then I guess all languages beyond Common are stupid wastes of points, too! All beings in all fantasy worlds speak Esperanto, instead of a limited mutually intelligible pool of gestures for 'hunger,' 'thirst,' etc. -- because otherwise the GM is "de-protagonizing you," *cough* I mean, "not following the rules." Awww, there there, punum.
Quote from: Elfdart;589911The point I made is that what at first glance might seem like a stupid decision in creating a PC might not be so stupid after all. There could be a method to the madness.
A method to deliberately making a character that cannot function cohesively with the rest of the party? I'm sure who ever does that can come up with a reason for doing it no doubt but it seems like you're against such a thing based on what you said following this.
QuoteName a system where basket-weaving is an actual skill that can be selected.
I'm fairly sure you can take up Craft: Basketweaving in 3rd because of the way the Craft skill is supposed to work and I'm half sure its in 2e in some form.
QuoteBecause in most systems, acquiring a stick, a bag of flour, glass beads, etc is easy, while acquiring extra skill slots or points is not. Any 0-level man-at-arms can use them, and in a world where deadly dungeons and monsters are a regular feature of the landscape, would use them if possible. There's no excuse for being unprepared unless physically prevented.
In most systems it is also easy to acquire relevant skills. It would also make sense that any would be adventurer daring to travel into what they know is a dangerous and unpredictable dungeon or going on a wild adventure would know to not do that unless they have the relevant skills. There is no excuse to be unprepared unless physically prevented. There is also no excuse for taking unnecessary risks when you now that you are highly unlikely to succeed.
QuoteYou don't know it's useless PC until it has actually been played and even then it's not so clear. Many PCs created the "right" way die in humiliating fashion, after all. If you're going to have a game where PCs can be custom-built one of the inherent risks is that you'll have some PCs who excel at things that are of no use in the campaign. Get over it.
You'd be wrong on multiple counts here. I can gauge what would be a useless, or at least close to useless PC based off knowing what they are capable of. You should be able to do the same. You don't go up to random NPCs who are obviously not adventurers and ask them to go dungeon delving. Well, that is unless you use the meta knowledge and whenever you know a character is a player character that crap covered dirt farming character is
obviously more trustworthy than random crap covered farmer NPC #28.
QuoteIf a PC is actually being a hindrance to the rest of the party then it should be up to the PCs to decide how to deal with the offender, not the GM/DM.
This is perhaps a preference thing but I'd like to do that kind of shit
before I'm actually gaming. Kicking a person's character out of the group mid game would be a douche bag thing to do. It also is equally douche baggy to just plop that kind of shit in the laps of everyone else that is playing at random. You are either forcing people to be mean and say "no you're not tall enough to adventure" or forcing them to begrudgingly accept your shenanigans just to be sociable. Personally I've never run a game where someone tried to pulled that kind of shit but I've played in games like that and I know that I get pretty damn offended if not at least informed beforehand that I'd have a character on the team that intends to be babysat.
Quote from: Opaopajr;589917Oh wait, that's right, the role playing game doesn't exist beyond combat for you guys. I forgot about your myopia.
This is what I was talking about jibba.
Quote from: MGuy;589918I'm fairly sure you can take up Craft: Basketweaving in 3rd because of the way the Craft skill is supposed to work and I'm half sure its in 2e in some form.
You can! In fact, it is specifically mentioned in the Monster Manual II as one of the two methods used to create a Bogun - the other being Craft (weaving). A bogun can actually be fairly useful to a druid as it is telepathically linked to the druid at a range of up to 1,500 feet; the druid perceives anything that the bogun perceives.
Quote from: Elfdart;589911You don't know it's useless PC until it has actually been played and even then it's not so clear. Many PCs created the "right" way die in humiliating fashion, after all. If you're going to have a game where PCs can be custom-built one of the inherent risks is that you'll have some PCs who excel at things that are of no use in the campaign. Get over it.
There is an analogy with computer operating systems that is instructive: UNIX/Linux permits unlimited access to the operating system, including the ability to modify the kernel or the core of the operating system. The sublime control this confers allows for subtle manipulations of the environment to gross changes in how information is read from the hard drive, if desired. Along with that, however, is the ability to
totally fuck your system up, sometimes accidentally. You can feasibly lose every scrap of data and have to start over with a clean install. The similarities to the C programming language are not accidental; C allows for such control as well, and C++ even moreso. The UNIX/Linux kernels are written in C and are available to anyone installing the operating system, which includes a C/C++ compiler.
OS X, on the other hand, is practically a black box. You can get to a terminal, but it's not particularly easy, and the Darwin version of FreeBSD is not quite as open. Although, it's nigh impossible to say how much is open and how much is closed. Apple keeps the 'training wheels' on, no matter what; there is no way to use OS X except how Apple wants. Sure, you can whip up a script or two, but nothing terribly complicated. There is a reason 'Apple' starts with 'app'. Consequently, tech support is a fricking breeze with Macs. You know they can't really do much to the system, so it's usually just a matter of shutting down some errant process or zapping the PRAM (and I am not sure that is done anymore either). So, little chance to fuck up your system, but little chance to do anything interesting either.
Microsoft falls somewhere in the middle, of course, but more on the Apple end. Not that it isn't still fairly easy to hose your system, but that is a factor of security issues rather than access to the operating system.
So, you can have a huge range of skills that includes ethnoentomology, 14th century Norman Poetry, Rocket Surgery and every weapon skill and martial art known to man; the ability to create
any character means there is the possibility of creating a character with no skills applicable to the adventure at hand, or possibly
any adventure the players would be interested in. Of course, the critical clue for the entire mission could revolve around the behaviour of Asian cockroaches in a dockside warehouse.
Or, you can have characters that are moderately to severely constrained in the categories of skills they are permitted to take. There will be no SEAL Team Six dragging around a moderately qualified sous chef, but then again, their infiltration disguise options will be limited to 'SEAL Team Six in civvies' and negotiations tend to be more intimidation than cutting a deal. Then again, storming a fortified enemy emplacement isn't something best accomplished by translating Beowulf.
For myself, I prefer to have the options available, even if they are never actually used. Not having the options available at all means the rules have already decided how to handle any given situation for you. Naturally, neither of these are the optimal or best play style; it entirely depends on what a given group expects or enjoys.
QuoteIf a PC is actually being a hindrance to the rest of the party then it should be up to the PCs to decide how to deal with the offender, not the GM/DM.
And it shouldn't be up to the rules, either. If it's mostly a boardgame like HeroQuest, then no problem. B/X or AD&D as a series of dungeon crawls and nothing in between; also no problem. But if the intent is a fully immersive RPG with a fleshed out milieu, then those kinds of skills should be expected and they should be expected to find some use. Handwaving skills that have a measurable level of quality associated with their execution in such a game is unsatisfying at best. This could be where some of the dissonance arises; 3.x expanded the skill selection significantly, but the dominant paradigm (at least online) seems to be MMORPG style raids.
In Old School D&D, you can't choose to have basket-weaving, though you might roll it randomly on a Secondary Skill table.
RPGPundit
Quote from: MGuy;589918This is perhaps a preference thing but I'd like to do that kind of shit before I'm actually gaming. Kicking a person's character out of the group mid game would be a douche bag thing to do. It also is equally douche baggy to just plop that kind of shit in the laps of everyone else that is playing at random. You are either forcing people to be mean and say "no you're not tall enough to adventure" or forcing them to begrudgingly accept your shenanigans just to be sociable. Personally I've never run a game where someone tried to pulled that kind of shit but I've played in games like that and I know that I get pretty damn offended if not at least informed beforehand that I'd have a character on the team that intends to be babysat.
This attitude however, is 100% metagame. It's coming from the point of view of D&D as a sports team, where if I ask if you want to be the Wide Receiver(insert character role here), I expect you to only say yes if you can run fast and catch.
Take a look at WFRP1, The Enemy Within Campaign. The Pregen characters all had their own lives, different reasons for being in a certain place at a certain time, but something happens that brings them together. The "bringing together" part of a game can be the toughest, especially in a game where the players may not like or trust each other at all. You have the "bringing together" done amongst the players during chargen.
Completely different attitude. Yours has a 4th wall awareness where everyone is going to fill a niche and be able to support a role because "we're all D&D characters who are going to be dungeoneering." Rich Burlew has made a whole lot of money exploring that attitude amongst 3rd edition players (and I hope he has a full recovery).
I hope you can see that obviously, not everyone plays that way.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590025This attitude however, is 100% metagame. It's coming from the point of view of D&D as a sports team, where if I ask if you want to be the Wide Receiver(insert character role here), I expect you to only say yes if you can run fast and catch.
I like this analogy a lot. Wide Receiver is a role that you find in organized teams, but how often would you find it in your backyard?
Both games are 'football'. Nobody would mock you for going outside with the kids and scrimmaging a bit after Thanksgiving dinner.
But try it in an RPG and suddenly someone gets offended.
Excellent analogy!
Quote from: CRKrueger;590025This attitude however, is 100% metagame. It's coming from the point of view of D&D as a sports team, where if I ask if you want to be the Wide Receiver(insert character role here), I expect you to only say yes if you can run fast and catch.
Two things, yes it is metagame because only the meta happens before the game starts. It wouldn't make any sense if that was in game because no part of the game exists before the game gets started. For two your analogy only works to help my point both in game and out.
In game I know I'm putting my life on the line to do whatever and I know that if I'm going to do so with other people I expect them to be somewhat capable because if they aren't I fail and die. Their failure is directly related to my own failure and death and thus I am going to avoid putting my life on the line with incapable people. I'd do that in real life and I'd imagine any sane person would do so as well.
In your "sports team" example it works even better because while note every NFL team has the best of the best players on it every player is pretty damn good at what they do. I mean they'd have to be or they wouldn't get paid. The stakes aren't "very high" in a given NFL game but being capable is still the barrier to entry.
Now the only way your analogy can hold at all is if we're talking about backyard football and we're being incredibly meta about our view on people that shouldn't be adventuring. In backyard football there are no real stakes and most of the time you accept shitty people on your team just to fill the roster. If you have a choice/more people than you need, you would not be surprised that the shittiest and/or most unliked people don't get on anyone's team. In RPGs usually your characters are trying to do something of importance so they are going to want and seek out capable people if they can. It is incredibly meta to have the team ok a random mothafucka with no applicable skills.
QuoteTake a look at WFRP1, The Enemy Within Campaign. The Pregen characters all had their own lives, different reasons for being in a certain place at a certain time, but something happens that brings them together. The "bringing together" part of a game can be the toughest, especially in a game where the players may not like or trust each other at all. You have the "bringing together" done amongst the players during chargen.
Cool so no one had a choice in who they were, what they could do, and they were railroaded into being together.
QuoteCompletely different attitude. Yours has a 4th wall awareness where everyone is going to fill a niche and be able to support a role because "we're all D&D characters who are going to be dungeoneering." Rich Burlew has made a whole lot of money exploring that attitude amongst 3rd edition players (and I hope he has a full recovery).
This was already addressed earlier but I just want to point out that again this is completely wrong as:
1: There is just the meta before the game starts.
2: It makes complete logical sense why anybody would avoid having an incapable person on their team if given the choice.
3: It is incredibly meta for characters to ok random, incapable people, to be on their adventuring team. People do not task random NPC civilian types to be on their team constantly but for some reason they will thoughtlessly ok a PC type civilian despite the danger that having the person on their team elicits.
QuoteI hope you can see that obviously, not everyone plays that way.
I would certainly hope that not a lot of people would show up to a game with a character not fit for the game everyone else wants to play. Having a character almost completely incapable of being useful to the team is just as bad as someone bringing a completely minmaxxed god character to a game where everyone else does not have a character that can possibly keep up. Its just like bringing an east asian vagabond into a game of Western European intrigue and repartee. It is just like bringing a paladin to a game about thieving. In all these instances you have to either turn their character away right at the start or you are forced to take extra considerations to get the game running smoothly.
So yea, I'm offended when someone does that shit for the lulz.
Quote from: MGuy;5903271: There is just the meta before the game starts.
Actually this and several other threads make it pretty clear it is constant and ongoing, unless you're not going to feel offended if I go full CharOp during generation and then start picking up random skills later. You may however be talking about going Full Retard with CharOp and have my 1-20 plan pre-laid out, in which case I'd all say it's not defined to chargen since the plan is ongoing.
Quote from: MGuy;5903272: It makes complete logical sense why anybody would avoid having an incapable person on their team if given the choice.
and of course you always have the choice in life, and indeed you also always have perfect in-character information about your teammates. :rolleyes:
Quote from: MGuy;5903273: It is incredibly meta for characters to ok random, incapable people, to be on their adventuring team.
I agree, however, the key is the interview process needs to be handled
in-game, not during chargen. If the player is a backstory-whore and comes up with some special snowflake that's not going to pull his weight, you need to find that out in game and dump his character. If the character tells you he's a {insert class} though and looks the part, how the hell are you going to know differently?
Quote from: MGuy;590327I would certainly hope that not a lot of people would show up to a game with a character not fit for the game everyone else wants to play.
So in the end it comes down to a per-table basis. I agree. I never have a problem with you wanting to run your table your way, why the fuck would I care? Unfortunately, jackasses like LM and GC are willing to shit out 1000's of posts arguing it's the best way to play.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590335Actually this and several other threads make it pretty clear it is constant and ongoing, unless you're not going to feel offended if I go full CharOp during generation and then start picking up random skills later. You may however be talking about going Full Retard with CharOp and have my 1-20 plan pre-laid out, in which case I'd all say it's not defined to chargen since the plan is ongoing.
I do not know what this has to do with the fact that before you actually play the game there is no "in game" part and there is just the meta. I acknowledge that you can and will meta throughout the game (in fact by the virtue of it being the game I expect some amount of meta to be ever present).
Quoteand of course you always have the choice in life, and indeed you also always have perfect in-character information about your teammates. :rolleyes:
Not "always" because I,in real life, could not choose my back story, my height, my physical attributes, etc etc. However, in DnD, I can. I always can and so can each and every other player at the table just like we all came to a consensus about what RPG ruleset and setting we'd be using.
QuoteI agree, however, the key is the interview process needs to be handled in-game, not during chargen. If the player is a backstory-whore and comes up with some special snowflake that's not going to pull his weight, you need to find that out in game and dump his character. If the character tells you he's a {insert class} though and looks the part, how the hell are you going to know differently?
2 things. 1 If we're going to dump a character why the hell would it be better to do it after he's already in the game and then force him to write up another character after that? Not only does his participation possibly put everyone's characters at risk but it wastes that players' time and we all feel bad for having to exclude him after all the work was done.
2: "If" he looks the part but what about "if" he does not?
The reason I and anyone else can know the difference is because we are living breathing people about to play a game and we can ask each other that kind of info.
QuoteSo in the end it comes down to a per-table basis. I agree. I never have a problem with you wanting to run your table your way, why the fuck would I care? Unfortunately, jackasses like LM and GC are willing to shit out 1000's of posts arguing it's the best way to play.
I don't know what the fuck GC has been trying to say or actually what he even does but as far as onetruewayism is concerned I feel about him the same thing I felt when jeff made a similar claim. No one's way of playing imagination land is intrinsically better than anyone else's.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590025This attitude however, is 100% metagame. It's coming from the point of view of D&D as a sports team, where if I ask if you want to be the Wide Receiver(insert character role here), I expect you to only say yes if you can run fast and catch.
<...snip...>
I hope you can see that obviously, not everyone plays that way.
Agree with this totally but its not limited to 3e or 4 e its common in OSR as well.
Even on this site when I have pointed out issues I encountered playing 1e/2e with all thief or all fighter parties, which itself led to me houseruling the game to compensate for reliance on magical healing etc, I have been met with arguments that a party in D&D needs to be balanced and represent each of the major classes because that is how the game runs....
Likewise when I have pointed out that the sports or 10 foot pole approach to D&D is very common in the OSR where all charcters use the same professional adventuring techniques and rarely make sub-optimal ingame desicions for role play reasons I have been shouted down for being a wanky role-player.
just sayin....
Quote from: Mr. GC;589528A basket weaver is the antithesis of a good player, but ignoring that and only focusing on the subjective bullshit you like so much... Benoist has made it very clear he doesn't like me and probably doesn't like MGuy either, pretty sure Bill isn't a fan, MGuy has said he doesn't like me very much and probably doesn't like them either... Ok, maybe Benoist and Bill would like each other but for the most part it'd be exactly the opposite of what a game should be about - namely friends working for mutual betterment.
So I stand by that game being a mess. There's enough games like that without intentionally seeking them out.
And even if it were something like me and MGuy (who I'm really not sure why you're labeling on the same side, as he's fully drunk on the Den kool aid)... somehow I doubt that would work either. I suspect I would be very, very bored as you just wouldn't be playing on the same level as me, so I'd be facerolling everything and you'd get frustrated about that and well yeah. Still a mess.
It is possible to like a person socially, but not like the way they play rpg's.
Quote from: Bill;590542It is possible to like a person socially, but not like the way they play rpg's.
Not that it is really relevant now but I doubt that is the case either.
That said, personalities aren't just something you turn on and off.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590565Not that it is really relevant now but I doubt that is the case either.
.
Do you honestly believe this?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;590576Do you honestly believe this?
First I'd like to know what it is that you are actually arguing. That such an all over the place group would get along well? Because I definitely believe it would not, and it'd be best for all involved to not form it.
Since he's bringing up some long forgotten argument I don't even know what he's actually trying to say here and now.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590579First I'd like to know what it is that you are actually arguing. That such an all over the place group would get along well? Because I definitely believe it would not, and it'd be best for all involved to not form it.
Since he's bringing up some long forgotten argument I don't even know what he's actually trying to say here and now.
All he is suggesting is you can get along with someone socially even if you dont like their playstyle. For example i know gamers who are great to hang out with, but not so great to play a game with. He is essentially asserting that an optimizer and roleplayer could conceivably go to mcdonalds and have a nice conversation. Or they might even be able to put up with each other at the table on account of getting along despite having strikingly different approaches to play.
Not all such people can get along. But most people, in my experience, can get on just fine and even adapt their style to fit the make up of a particular group. The kinds of vitriol between play styles and design ideology are almost wholly absent from the tables i game at in real life.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;590583All he is suggesting is you can get along with someone socially even if you dont like their playstyle. For example i know gamers who are great to hang out with, but not so great to play a game with. He is essentially asserting that an optimizer and roleplayer could conceivably go to mcdonalds and have a nice conversation. Or they might even be able to put up with each other at the table on account of getting along despite having strikingly different approaches to play.
Not all such people can get along. But most people, in my experience, can get on just fine and even adapt their style to fit the make up of a particular group. The kinds of vitriol between play styles and design ideology are almost wholly absent from the tables i game at in real life.
That might be true for some differences but basket weaving is a life style, and same for optimizing, so they're not going to get along any better outside the gaming table.
Case in point: There's no game here. People are acting the same way as they say they play.
Dude, get out of your house and spend some time with people in real life fact to face situations.
The internet is not a reflection of how people are in real life. The internet makes the average person a shitcock.
And basketweaving or min/maxing is not a lifestyle. It's a personal preference when playing an rpg. A game. Played occasionally.
I hate the Raiders. My good friend loves them. We get along great. There are other parts of social interaction than one narrow focus.
I see that we are back to useless posts then. Yawn.
So back to the actual subject. People going into a dangerous situation have every right to know the capabilities of their teammates. If those capabilities are that they don't have any capabilities, they have a right to know that as well, so they know who to leave in town while they take care of business.
Some lazy, selfish jerkass who expects the party to just carry them, and then gets offended and calls the people that would say no to this jerkasses are not only a blight upon the game they are present in, they are a blight upon the hobby as a whole. The only reason this mentality is so persistent and so prevalent is because so many people enable it. Look at any game that isn't tabletop, or anything that isn't gaming, and you won't see incompetence extolled as a virtue anywhere near as often. And yet people have these mental blocks that make them play elf games like idiots.
It's an easy problem to fix. Just play the actual game. Not pretend instead. When you play the actual game, what happens is the good characters survive and thrive, and the bad ones die consistently and repeatedly. This results in a quickly self correcting problem if you get it early, and if not - if their preconceptions have set in from heavy enabling it will take a bit longer but the solution is literally that the slaughter will continue until play improves.
Sure, the solution might be that the basket weaver ragequits and you need a replacement player, but take a look at the basket weaver personalities. These aren't people you'd want to associate with in game or not, because their personality of "everyone must be as incompetent as I am" extends beyond mere elf games. People like say, Sacrosanct have absolutely nothing of value to contribute to anything at any time, ever. You miss nothing by telling them to fuck off and gain quite a lot.
Make D&D gaming a better place, gank a gimp today. :D
Quote from: Mr. GC;590594I see that we are back to useless posts then. Yawn.
I know you're only like 13 in real life, but here's a hint. When you say something or otherwise make a claim, and someone points out how fundamentally flawed it is? You can't just say something like you just did without coming off as an immature spoiled brat.
Just saying. No one is ever going to take you seriously if on every time you are presented with something that shows how you are wrong, you just dismiss it rather than actually back up what you said in the first place.
If you want to have an adult conversation, start behaving like an adult.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590594Make D&D gaming a better place, gank a gimp today. :D
The problem with this line of thinking is, it's 100% metagame in what should be a roleplaying game. I have nothing wrong with ganking a gimp, however, it should be my character ganking a gimp character after my character finds out in game, that the gimp is a gimp.
As a player I have no interest in looking over someone's character sheet to see how he's optimized. His character tells my character what he can do and how qualified he is. If he's lying and is a threat to my team, I'll bury him, or cut him loose, or part ways after we get back to safety, depending on the game we're playing and the character I'm roleplaying. You know, exactly how your character would actually handle it.
If I want to make people pass checks to group with me based on spec, I'll play a MMOG.
I'm have no interest in enabling a useless backstory whore who wants everyone to support his Special Snowflake Syndrome, but all that is going to be evident in the character he makes. A lot of players who have behaviors that get the better of them because no one has ever called them on their bullshit ends up getting stopped at my group's table. Some of them never come back, some of them simply stop their bullshit, and we get along great.
I'm sorry, do these "basketweavers" that GC is describing actually exist, or is this just some elaborate internet strawman? Because it just seems like he's talking about some mythical RPg saboteurs who sound less and less realistic the more he talks about them.
Quote from: TristramEvans;590600I'm sorry, do these "basketweavers" that GC is describing actually exist, or is this just some elaborate internet strawman? Because it just seems like he's talking about some mythical RPg saboteurs who sound less and less realistic the more he talks about them.
In part they exist like the quasi-mythical CatPissMan(I've actually met one and he did actually smell of catpiss among other things). GC's talking about people who will consistently create interesting (to them) characters that are suboptimal and end up being a chain around the party's neck. How often does this really happen? I don't know, I've run into
one person who wasn't invited back after three characters that came with 25-page backstories, special problems, etc... Over the years I've run into a handful mainly at cons and pickup groups.
Anyone else, all it takes is "Dude, you're not the only one at the table." and they reign it in. You talk to people like they are adults and they act like adults, or you don't invite them back, zero problem, zero issue.
All the rest is typical Internet bullshit.
Where GC goes Full Retard (and fake internet personamode) is assuming that it's something other then a voluntary, and thus correctable behavior.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590585That might be true for some differences but basket weaving is a life style, and same for optimizing, so they're not going to get along any better outside the gaming table..
On what planet is Optimization or "basket weaving" a lifestyle?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;590606On what planet is Optimization or "basket weaving" a lifestyle?
I imagine on a planet where someone spends the vast majority of their time, every day, doing nothing but optimizing. No going out to places. No other hobbies. Just sitting at a desk going over books.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;590606On what planet is Optimization or "basket weaving" a lifestyle?
I wouldn't hold my breath; he essentially copy and pastes whatever Frank Trollman says. Recent complaints about Fighters causing Clerics to see the future less or summon fewer angels was just about word for word from the Trollman quote he has in his sig over at TGD. Frank channels Edwards' 'brain damage' line, Mr GC faithfully parrots Frank, and we have to listen to nonsense about optimizers are more organized in real life, hence, better people.
Mr GC fails to realize that Frank is merely presenting his obsession with neatness and organization as a virtue rather than a complete pain in the ass like it actually is.
Quote from: jibbajibba;590523Agree with this totally but its not limited to 3e or 4 e its common in OSR as well.
Even on this site when I have pointed out issues I encountered playing 1e/2e with all thief or all fighter parties, which itself led to me houseruling the game to compensate for reliance on magical healing etc, I have been met with arguments that a party in D&D needs to be balanced and represent each of the major classes because that is how the game runs....
Likewise when I have pointed out that the sports or 10 foot pole approach to D&D is very common in the OSR where all charcters use the same professional adventuring techniques and rarely make sub-optimal ingame desicions for role play reasons I have been shouted down for being a wanky role-player.
just sayin....
Bleah. You keep singing this tune in your anti-OSR songbook, but you're blowing it out of proportion. You do have a point though...
1. The archetypes being "metagame". I never treated them as such, it was simple - if you didn't expect to need healing, then you didn't have to bring someone who needed healing. Special Ops teams have medics. Why? They get shot at. You want to make a group where everyone is a Rogue or Fighter? Sure, but this a world where magic exists and the opposition may very well have Mages and Healers. Does that mean you can't defeat them? No, but it means you should be aware of the consequences.
I altered the HP regain rules because RAW, HPs make no sense whatsoever. They are Schrodinger's Mechanics. Sometimes they mean physical damage, sometimes they do not. I also allowed MU necromantic spells to do some limited healing based on articles out of Dragon (and provided your character got ahold of those spells.)
2. I never liked the Indiana Jones "Bag of Flour and a 10' Pole" trope, especially from 1st level fighters that just got released from basic militia training. No one I played with played that way except the Rogues (from whom that kind of stuff was expected). Now experienced adventurers who have a few levels and have learned, sure. But then again I roleplayed a lot more then Old Geezer.
Yeah the OSR Taliban is gonna try and skewer you on these two points Jibba, but that's like 20 people. There's more then 1000 times that number on the Giant In the Playground 3.5 forums alone.
In other words -
"Common" for 3.5? Yeah, to the point of being cliche.
"Common" for earlier editions, not even close.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590598The problem with this line of thinking is, it's 100% metagame in what should be a roleplaying game. I have nothing wrong with ganking a gimp, however, it should be my character ganking a gimp character after my character finds out in game, that the gimp is a gimp.
First of all that was a facetious statement, in case the language didn't give it away. The weak characters should die of course, and they will, but it's hardly "ganking" as it's rare actual PKing is required.
That said it's hardly metagaming for a group that's forming to ask each other "What can you do?"
Even aside from abilities and their power, you want to know what your team's strengths and weaknesses are going to be so you can devise plans together.
And if some guy doesn't have an answer, or doesn't have a convincing answer you're within your rights to ask why he's here then.
QuoteAs a player I have no interest in looking over someone's character sheet to see how he's optimized. His character tells my character what he can do and how qualified he is. If he's lying and is a threat to my team, I'll bury him, or cut him loose, or part ways after we get back to safety, depending on the game we're playing and the character I'm roleplaying. You know, exactly how your character would actually handle it.
The only problem with this method is that if he is lying (and basket weavers do lie about their abilities, they don't even have to intend to be lying, they just think they're actually capable when they aren't) you don't find out until after the fact meaning that there's a good chance you don't get to kill or kick him, you just die.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590604GC's talking about people who will consistently create interesting (to them) characters that are suboptimal and end up being a chain around the party's neck. How often does this really happen? I don't know, I've run into one person who wasn't invited back after three characters that came with 25-page backstories, special problems, etc... Over the years I've run into a handful mainly at cons and pickup groups.
This board is full of them. The general tabletop community is full of them. How the fuck did you only encounter one? Are you sure you just didn't notice them? They are somewhat hard to notice provided that the DM is a basket weaver, at which point you're playing pretend instead of D&D, their characters won't die, and you won't hear their constant bitching.
QuoteAnyone else, all it takes is "Dude, you're not the only one at the table." and they reign it in. You talk to people like they are adults and they act like adults, or you don't invite them back, zero problem, zero issue.
All the rest is typical Internet bullshit.
Where GC goes Full Retard (and fake internet personamode) is assuming that it's something other then a voluntary, and thus correctable behavior.
Oh, it is a correctable behavior. Just it's so often enabled that large numbers of players are adverse to even the concept of good play, much less good players and good play being expected of them.
Voluntary? Not as sure about that. I don't think someone like Sacro could ever make a character worth anything. If I held someone he cared about hostage and said make me a non gimp or this guy/girl gets it... he couldn't do it. Now obviously I wouldn't do that, as I'm content with blithely mocking gimpy players, but I really do believe he couldn't make a character worth anything if someone's life depended on it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;590606On what planet is Optimization or "basket weaving" a lifestyle?
The planet that contains both Occupy Wall Street protesters and successful businessmen.
Also, lol at the moron that thinks I'm just copying Frank. Or that I even get along with Frank. Perhaps you should go troll the Den a bit better.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590626Voluntary? Not as sure about that. I don't think someone like Sacro could ever make a character worth anything. If I held someone he cared about hostage and said make me a non gimp or this guy/girl gets it... he couldn't do it. Now obviously I wouldn't do that, as I'm content with blithely mocking gimpy players, but I really do believe he couldn't make a character worth anything if someone's life depended on it..
:(
Hopefully one day you'll grow out this kind of behavior.
Hopefully. Dealing with real life must be a real downer for you, huh? Chin up dude. One day you'll find that real life social interaction is a million times more fulfilling than make-pretend min-maxing about a game. Thing is, you gotta suck it up and actually go out there and meet with people face to face. I know this is probably terrifying, and that's OK. It's not that unusual for a socially awkward teen to encounter those feelings. But you can't go through your whole life placing your value on min/maxing an rpg character. Real relationship, real love, real social interaction--that's what value is.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590626The only problem with this method is that if he is lying (and basket weavers do lie about their abilities, they don't even have to intend to be lying, they just think they're actually capable when they aren't) you don't find out until after the fact meaning that there's a good chance you don't get to kill or kick him, you just die.
If I die, then I die. It sucks, but I'd rather die in game, then get saved through metagaming.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590626Are you sure you just didn't notice them? They are somewhat hard to notice provided that the DM is a basket weaver, at which point you're playing pretend instead of D&D, their characters won't die, and you won't hear their constant bitching.
I've only met one who wouldn't adjust to the table. Everyone else just learned.
Once, when our old group was disintegrating due to time and life, we brought in a lot of new blood. In one stretch of time I went through several very cool characters due to TPKs. Why? Not because characters weren't CharOp'd (this was AD&D, where you can't gimp yourself) but because the GM was playing low level humanoids realistically, and lack of tactics meant people were dropping like flies. Splitting the party, moving into danger because "me too", all the stupid shit that gets everyone killed. After lots of after-session debriefs that pointed out exactly how we got wiped and why, they started learning, and characters stopped dying.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590626Oh, it is a correctable behavior. Just it's so often enabled that large numbers of players are adverse to even the concept of good play, much less good players and good play being expected of them.
I've definitely run into players that do crazy shit and don't expect the GM to kill them for it. In our groups, the GM kills them for it, and they stop doing the crazy shit. I've had two players go apeshit to the point of almost throwing down over their characters getting killed. Both of them came back within 6 months, because the games they were in just weren't as fun. They thought being able to run the show was what they wanted. They were wrong.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590638If I die, then I die. It sucks, but I'd rather die in game, then get saved through metagaming.
That's fine, but I still don't think it's metagaming to be aware a gimp is a gimp. That, by definition is something that is obvious in character.
QuoteOnce, when our old group was disintegrating due to time and life, we brought in a lot of new blood. In one stretch of time I went through several very cool characters due to TPKs. Why? Not because characters weren't CharOp'd (this was AD&D, where you can't gimp yourself) but because the GM was playing low level humanoids realistically, and lack of tactics meant people were dropping like flies. Splitting the party, moving into danger because "me too", all the stupid shit that gets everyone killed. After lots of after-session debriefs that pointed out exactly how we got wiped and why, they started learning, and characters stopped dying.
Lol at this, but I'm not interested in discussing older editions right now so I'll let it pass.
And what you just said was people stopped playing dumb and stopped dying.
QuoteI've definitely run into players that do crazy shit and don't expect the GM to kill them for it. In our groups, the GM kills them for it, and they stop doing the crazy shit. I've had two players go apeshit to the point of almost throwing down over their characters getting killed. Both of them came back within 6 months, because the games they were in just weren't as fun. They thought being able to run the show was what they wanted. They were wrong.
Now here's my question. Why are you here, on this board? This isn't exactly the place to get a lot of non basket weaver support, and yet you seem to identify with those here.
Quote from: MGuy;590327Now the only way your analogy can hold at all is if we're talking about backyard football and we're being incredibly meta about our view on people that shouldn't be adventuring. In backyard football there are no real stakes and most of the time you accept shitty people on your team just to fill the roster. If you have a choice/more people than you need, you would not be surprised that the shittiest and/or most unliked people don't get on anyone's team. In RPGs usually your characters are trying to do something of importance so they are going to want and seek out capable people if they can. It is incredibly meta to have the team ok a random mothafucka with no applicable skills.
Even in a backyard game, most people will draw a line about who can and cannot play. If you're a teenager playing with teenage friends, you probably won't let your five-year-old sister play. Anyone who has ever said 'you're too young to play' knows what we're talking about. It's not that you don't want them to have fun - it's that they will probably get hurt.
Taking a sous chef to take out Bin Laden in a Seal Team Six game is a bad idea
- not only does he take up room on the team that could be used for someone with relevant skills
- not only is he likely to get himself hurt or killed
- he is unlikely to contribute in any meaningful way
Quote from: Mr. GC;590626That said it's hardly metagaming for a group that's forming to ask each other "What can you do?"
This is definitely true. Sure, someone could lie, but the true capabilities should become obvious.
I'm reminded of a scene in Mystery Men (one of the most underrated comedies ever). The established team is recruiting additional 'super' heroes by having 'try-outs' in one of the character's back yard. They screen candidates by asking about what they can do and/or asking them to demonstrate. While the team itself is hardly 'optimized', even they had standards. Not everyone could 'make the cut'.
Now, taking Waffle-Iron Man would have been just as much of a problem as if Superman showed up - with him on the team, everyone else would have been superfluous.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590626Also, lol at the moron that thinks I'm just copying Frank. Or that I even get along with Frank. Perhaps you should go troll the Den a bit better.
Then perhaps you should stop parroting Frank. This whole basket-weaver nonsense is his baby, just like pretending that using numbers means you are playing hardcore and not MTP. Also that optimizers are better people in real life and 'basket-weavers' are disorganized, sloppy thinkers.
You can protesteth too much all day long if you like, but it would have a bit more weight if you at least use your own words when re-transmitting your received wisdom.
Quote from: StormBringer;590647Then perhaps you should stop parroting Frank. This whole basket-weaver nonsense is his baby, just like pretending that using numbers means you are playing hardcore and not MTP. Also that optimizers are better people in real life and 'basket-weavers' are disorganized, sloppy thinkers.
You can protesteth too much all day long if you like, but it would have a bit more weight if you at least use your own words when re-transmitting your received wisdom.
Then perhaps you should stop being a fucking moron. Basket weaver is hardly Frank's term, and he wasn't the first to come up with it. Likewise, playing D&D by playing D&D is neither his idea nor an especially original idea as it is indeed painfully obvious. The last thing is something I've never seen Frank say at all so I'm going to assume that's Storm Smokes Crack (which is actual Den speak).
If you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about you'd know that Frank actually isn't that much better at optimizing than you. Seriously, he's scared of shit like Lightning Bolt. No self respecting player does that. He also seems to think straight lines go down curved stairs, despite Lightning Bolt no longer refracting when striking a solid object.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590650If you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about...
Speaking of:
Quote...you'd know that Frank actually isn't that much better at optimizing than you.
Because Frank and K's Tomes are all about writing up a lengthy, detailed background and not about optimizing at all.
And thankfully, I am not particularly good at optimizing. It's because I have social skills and get along with people instead of always trying to beat them in imaginary contests like 'who can make the better D&D character?'
Quote from: CRKrueger;590612Bleah. You keep singing this tune in your anti-OSR songbook, but you're blowing it out of proportion. You do have a point though...
1. The archetypes being "metagame". I never treated them as such, it was simple - if you didn't expect to need healing, then you didn't have to bring someone who needed healing. Special Ops teams have medics. Why? They get shot at. You want to make a group where everyone is a Rogue or Fighter? Sure, but this a world where magic exists and the opposition may very well have Mages and Healers. Does that mean you can't defeat them? No, but it means you should be aware of the consequences.
Like Mother Nature, I let the world cull out the weak, the stupid and the unprepared. It's not a sure thing that a party with no spellcasters will get a TPK, but that where I'd place my bet.
Quote2. I never liked the Indiana Jones "Bag of Flour and a 10' Pole" trope, especially from 1st level fighters that just got released from basic militia training. No one I played with played that way except the Rogues (from whom that kind of stuff was expected). Now experienced adventurers who have a few levels and have learned, sure. But then again I roleplayed a lot more then Old Geezer.
First-level fighters are called
veterans in (A)D&D, so it's quite reasonable that the ones who go adventuring will have picked up tricks of the trade.
Interesting debate. I do have to pity Mr CG a fair bit because of the blinding arrogance enough to make even Pundit banche.
I agree with a lot of CRKrueger's points I too woudl prefer to die in character that gimp for meta game reasons now to me that also includes making the new guy play the healer because you need a healer then all the PCs meet randomly in a tavern or find themselves serving as galley slaves at the start of the campaign.
Everyone plays what they play and that is what you have now if you were playing in a game where the PCs were all agents of the king or a Delta force team then I woudl expect a degree of 'team rolls' need to be filled. It does indeed stand to reason that a special ops team, either for Uncle Sam or King Celeborn is going to cover the necessary skills but how many games actually run that way from first level?
Now I work in a big corporation, the idea that clueless people get found out and cream rises is bollocks the truth is political people rise and their rivals get dumped on. That will be no different in a D&D party. there is an excellent bit in The Heroes
Spoiler
where the weakest most cowardly warrior ends up king of the North because he gets political support from the hardest bastard in the North.
and I have seen that work in play all the time. In a party of five the leader may well end up being a crappy basket weaving fighter who's player has the political control of the group not the most powerful or charismatic PC in the group.
I can give you a specific play example. Lord Fantasitc. Lord Fantastic is a PC belonging to a mate of mine. He put his 18 into Comliness and his 16 into Charisma. He has a lot of ettiquette and heraldry and I think he may be specialised with a sword but its really not very important. The player is a charismatic guy when he wants to be so he turns it on with Lord Fantastic and that PC will boss a group of PCs 3 levels higher than he is. The PC was made a Lord, albeit of a shit hole in the middle of no where when he was 2nd level and he was last seen floating up a river on a magical barge with half a dozen concubines.
Now in case you think the DM 'let him get a way with it' I DM'd that last game and to give you an understanding of how that plays the PCs had broken into a house to steal an object on the way out the party were escaping from a window and one of them, Josadec Horseslayer, had an option to flee or to check what was following them. He chose to check and the player told me afterwards that he knew as soon as he did that he was dead. The extra round was all it took for the guards to mass enough force. . And he was right no rescue no ressurectection he got to start a 1st level thief instead. Now the point is that Lord Fantasic was playing a real game with genuine risks. The evil bastard NPCs didn;t care how pretty he was they would have gutted him in a second but he manged to pursuade the other PCs and NPCs to help him and the player was able to pursuade the players.
In D&D at low to mid levels tactics can make a huge difference true at high level as well but at high levels Magic and equipment triumph. At low levels your build or the build of the entire party isn;t as important as the tactics you deploy. Its like the Expendables (all power PCs with good builds) versus the penguins from Madagascar (fantastic tactics) the penguins will win. So a Player with good tactics is a massive boon to the team, and tactics are a player skill and whilst a good tactician can rolelay a tactically weak PC a tactically weak player can not roleplay a brilliant tactician. So you play a basket weaver who on paper is crap but in play is Caesar and Napolenon rolled into one.....
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;590606On what planet is Optimization or "basket weaving" a lifestyle?
The planet of buttfuck crazy people, or alternately, people who've lived into a real-life dungeon for far too long and should get out some time to get a bit of fresh air and you know... live.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590646Taking a sous chef to take out Bin Laden in a Seal Team Six game is a bad idea
...and that's not what we're remotely talking about. What we're talking about is building a party (thus weeding out "basketweaver characters") through roleplaying or metagame. If you're actually playing a SpecOps game, then you have requirements you have to meet, both physically and skillwise in order to qualify for your MOS, and the team slots will be allocated to certain MOS's. You can't have a Cook be on a Seal Team, what you can have is a Seal "Who also cooks."
Obviously, in a game setting where the character concepts have to meet certain requirements, then characters who don't meet those requirements will be cut
in-game, even if it's off-stage.
Quote from: Conversation happening daily at gaming tables in the Real WorldGM - "Sorry Jim, the requirements for Seal Team Six are {whatever}, you're going to drop some skill ranks in {whatever} and add them to Demolitions or else this character would have been cut during selection."
Jim - "Ok, no problem."
Quote from: CRKrueger;590669...and that's not what we're remotely talking about.
I disagree. We're absolutely talking about characters that don't meet the minimum requirements to contribute to the party's success. In a standard D&D adventure, it means that they don't bring basic skills to survive. Whether they're fun to play or not becomes irrelevant - if they survive, it's because they're kept alive by other party members. Other party members are therefore forced to put up with a character that is a drain on resources unless they either tell the player to 'make a real character' or ditch the useless character in game. Either way, it'd be better to address it in game.
A basketweaver is a character that brings no useful skills to the game. They are a drain on the party's resources and do not contribute anything meaningful to the team. If they are tolerated it is to be sensitive to the player, not to his character - and thus is inherently metagame driven.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590670I disagree. We're absolutely talking about characters that don't meet the minimum requirements to contribute to the party's success.
Defined by who? TGD or GITP Forums? The other players at the table, who?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590670In a standard D&D adventure, it means that they don't bring basic skills to survive.
Like...what. Show me a list of the 3.5 skills that every character must have maxed within the rules to survive. Enough hyperbolic bullshit, list what the hell you mean.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590670Whether they're fun to play or not becomes irrelevant - if they survive, it's because they're kept alive by other party members. Other party members are therefore forced to put up with a character that is a drain on resources unless they either tell the player to 'make a real character' or ditch the useless character in game. Either way, it'd be better to address it in game.
Yes, yes, quoted word from word from 100 fucking TGD threads. You DO realize you're dropping back and forth between player and character in the same sentence, right? If it's best handled
in game, that means by characters not by players. You do realize that's the definition of in-game, right?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590670A basketweaver is a character that brings no useful skills to the game. They are a drain on the party's resources and do not contribute anything meaningful to the team.
Is it even possible for you to recognize regurgitated hyperbole at this point in your life?
How about you show us an example of a 1st level 3.5 character, any type, that you consider to be a perfect example of this "basket-weaving" character that is a threat to all you hold dear. Then show us a 5th level Rogue who meets the minimum requirements for inclusion in the non-basketweaver club.
Just once, in three accursed wasted months, fucking prove something with all your supposed rules knowledge.
Quote from: StormBringer;590653Speaking of:
Because Frank and K's Tomes are all about writing up a lengthy, detailed background and not about optimizing at all.
And thankfully, I am not particularly good at optimizing. It's because I have social skills and get along with people instead of always trying to beat them in imaginary contests like 'who can make the better D&D character?'
Classic basket weaver argument. Apparently having social skills makes you bad at gaming. Wait, what?
Tomes try to be about optimizing but they totally epic fail because the writers don't have an idea what optimization is (hint: it isn't jacking offense, which is already high way up and leaving defense in its current low state).
And to everyone, not just this clown: You do realize TGD was neither the first nor the best at saying that your characters should step it up or step on out right?
Quote from: Mr. GC;590676And to everyone, not just this clown: You do realize TGD was neither the first nor the best at saying that your characters should step it up or step on out right?
WTH is TGD? I think that's a quote from New Kids on the Block.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590676Apparently having social skills makes you bad at gaming.
Well, best make sure you never spend any proficiency slots on those.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590676Classic basket weaver argument. Apparently having social skills makes you bad at gaming. Wait, what?
No, not having social skills makes you bad at gaming. That's why you utterly suck at gaming and life.
QuoteTomes try to be about optimizing but they totally epic fail because the writers don't have an idea what optimization is (hint: it isn't jacking offense, which is already high way up and leaving defense in its current low state).
Uh huh. Considering how completely and wholly clueless you are at game design, I will go ahead and continue to not take you seriously.
QuoteAnd to everyone, not just this clown: You do realize TGD was neither the first nor the best at saying that your characters should step it up or step on out right?
IBM wasn't the first to make a computer, or even a personal computer, yet they dominated the industry for almost two decades. First to market isn't a guarantee of success; later companies can take your idea and run with it, leaving you in the dust.
In other words: whoop-de-shit. Your sentence up there is meaningless.
Quote from: TristramEvans;590681WTH is TGD? I think that's a quote from New Kids on the Block.
The Gaming Den. And like The New Kids on the Block, most of them tend get things right almost by accident.
Quote from: StormBringer;590684The Gaming Den. And like The New Kids on the Block, most of them tend get things right almost by accident.
Is the Gamning Den seriously full of people of....similar theories on gaming as GC?
Quote from: TristramEvans;590689Is the Gamning Den seriously full of people of....similar theories on gaming as GC?
Not really, no. Like every forum out there in internet-land (including this one) it isn't made up of an homogeneous soup.
Quote from: TristramEvans;590689Is the Gamning Den seriously full of people of....similar theories on gaming as GC?
Quote from: One Horse Town;590691Not really, no. Like every forum out there in internet-land (including this one) it isn't made up of an homogeneous soup.
That's true. I was referring to the contingent that has similar ideas; they tend to be right almost by accident. Lots of other people over there aren't really any different than most of us over here.
Quote from: Elfdart;590654Like Mother Nature, I let the world cull out the weak, the stupid and the unprepared. It's not a sure thing that a party with no spellcasters will get a TPK, but that where I'd place my bet.
A game like DnD should be able to handle a spellcasterless team. That much is a personal preference of mine.
Quote from: jibbajibba;590661Interesting debate. I do have to pity Mr CG a fair bit because of the blinding arrogance enough to make even Pundit banche.
Honestly to me it sounds like the same "my playstyle is the bestest" stuff that jeff laid down in the fighter v wiz thread.
I agree with a lot of CRKrueger's points I too would prefer to die in character that gimp for meta game reasons now to me that also includes making the new guy play the healer because you need a healer then all the PCs meet randomly in a tavern or find themselves serving as galley slaves at the start of the campaign. [/quote]I really hate the "need a healer" paradigm that D&D often runs on. Again, his is a personally thing but the idea of a group of people thinking a certain assortment of classes is necessary just to survive an expected day in the game is something I don't really like. I'd prefer the game if it could survive having all fighters, all clerics, all druids, etc and have each and everyone in he party be unique and capable enough to handle what they need to in the game. I sincerely would like a game that could handle people deciding o play a group of dwarf fighters out on their own trying to quest for their clan.
QuoteEveryone plays what they play and that is what you have now if you were playing in a game where the PCs were all agents of the king or a Delta force team then I would expect a degree of 'team rolls' need to be filled. It does indeed stand to reason that a special ops team, either for Uncle Sam or King Celeborn is going to cover the necessary skills but how many games actually run that way from first level?
I can also agree with you here. Not every game is going to be with a spec ops team. Different characters from different walks of life with different skill sets should be an expectation for the game.
QuoteNow I work in a big corporation, the idea that clueless people get found out and cream rises is bollocks the truth is political people rise and their rivals get dumped on.
I'd suspect that the landscape and actions in a DnD game is quite a bit different than political or business world maneuvering.
QuoteIn a party of five the leader may well end up being a crappy basket weaving fighter who's player has the political control of the group not the most powerful or charismatic PC in the group.
I can understand and agree with that. Some people have enough clout or charisma to make shitty decisions or make a shitty character at generation and can get away with it because they are "that player" that the group enjoys. However this is no reason to not encourage other people, who may lack the creativity, charismatic clout in the group, or the willingness to make the hard sacrifices to give their character flavor. None of this is a reason why Craft: Woven Basket should cost the same as Diplomacy.
Quotef So you play a basket weaver who on paper is crap but in play is Caesar and Napolenon rolled into one.....
Not many players can do the "tactics" thing. Believe me on this one. I've played at least enough games to temper my experiences as a Gm. It is not just just with newer players either. Without going into too much detail I can say that there is a certain amount of player skill that goes into reading your GM. I'm sure the person in your description wasn't just taking a stab in the dark when he played his I suppose "gimped" character (though as a person who favors Diplomancing I'd hardly refer to a charismatic character as gimped) that he knew what he was getting himself into and had a good idea about how much he could conceivably get away with at that table.
Good players are a god send, a rarity. You never know when you're going to get'em or when you're going to lose'em. However I have a good idea at what the average gamer does. I have seen a lot of different playstyles and I understand that some people will want to "challenge" themselves with weaker PCs. But that's a rarity and is far from what your average gamer wants to do. I've nothing against having a weaker character if everyone at the table knows what they are getting themselves into and feels that they are comfortable with it. However this is a group activity and (this is personal opinion) I feel that it is everyone's responsibility to aid in everyone having a good time. There is no reason at all to just drop an inappropriate character on everybody for no reason with no warning. There is no excuse.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590672Defined by who? TGD or GITP Forums? The other players at the table, who?
You know that this thread's title is Define "basket weaver" right? You also should know that I've explained what I'm referring to when I say basket weaver as well. I do not feel it is helpful to debate any subject unless clear definitions exist and I think that I've been pretty explicit in saying that I'm referring to a character that has little to no relevant skills. As dead observed you don't make a professional chef for a game about heroes.
QuoteLike...what. Show me a list of the 3.5 skills that every character must have maxed within the rules to survive. Enough hyperbolic bullshit, list what the hell you mean.
You misunderstand. There is no one skill or even a set of skills you 100% need on your character to survive. There are skills that are WAY more applicable to most situations than others.
I'm going to list the 3.5 skill list here and give a ranking from 0 to 3 for the usefulness of the skills where 0 means that the skill starts off with very narrow usage and becomes pointless at higher levels and 3 is when a skill scales well through all levels. Now keep in mind this is for 3rd edition and assuming a regular adventure where you're going around being an active force in the world with changing locales and the group having reasonable access to various abilities and resources in game.
Appraise = 1
Balance = 2
Bluff = 3
Climb = 1
Concentration = 2
Craft = 0
Decipher Script = 0
Diplomacy = 3
Disable Device = 2
Disguise = 1
Escape Artist = 1
Forgery = 0
Gather Information = 1
Handle Animal = 1
Heal = 2
Hide = 3
Intimidate = 2
Jump = 1
Knowledge = 1
Listen = 3
Move Silently = 3
Open Lock = 1
Perform = 0
Profession = 0
Ride = 2
Search = 1
Sense Motive = 3
Sleight Of Hand = 1
Speak Language = 1
Spellcraft = 3
Spot = 3
Survival = 1
Swim = 2
Tumble = 1
Use Magic Device = 3
Use Rope = 0
The 3s are skills that will always scale well. There will generally be tons of situations where the skill will be usable, useful, without relying on the plot or group to bend or hold back on the uses of their various abilities and expected power levels to make them viable.
2s are the skills that scale pretty well and if the group is missing certain ability types to straight up bypass their use they can be pretty damn useful.
1s are skills that start off pretty good and well worth having but later on become, in all practical ways, useless or redundant.
0s are skills that are narrow in scope and aren't very useful at all past opening levels. They are skills that merely buy you plot coupons at best.
QuoteYes, yes, quoted word from word from 100 fucking TGD threads. You DO realize you're dropping back and forth between player and character in the same sentence, right? If it's best handled in game, that means by characters not by players. You do realize that's the definition of in-game, right?
And not once have you stated why it is best to wait
until the character is in the game for the group to reject them. Why is it better to wait until you're playing the game to tell the other players and the GM that you're going to play a character that none of them want in the game? You're going to have to submit some justification for that as I have already stated why that is a bad thing to do.
QuoteIs it even possible for you to recognize regurgitated hyperbole at this point in your life?
How about you show us an example of a 1st level 3.5 character, any type, that you consider to be a perfect example of this "basket-weaving" character that is a threat to all you hold dear. Then show us a 5th level Rogue who meets the minimum requirements for inclusion in the non-basketweaver club.
Just once, in three accursed wasted months, fucking prove something with all your supposed rules knowledge.
Well all you had to do was ask.
1st Level Commoner. Professional Basket Weaver. Average stats (10 across). 2 Skills. Craft: Weaving, Profession: Merchant. 4 HP (going to at least give him that). Feats: Skill Focus: Craft: Weaving, Skill Focus: Profession: Merchant. Proficient with a Dagger. +0 to everything (saves, attack bonus, etc) except Craft and Profession which have a +7 bonus in both fields (in weaving and being a merchant).
Asking for a 5th level rogue that meets an imaginary minimum is impossible for me to fathom. Your rogue abilities at low level are already determined and are not completely unrelated to adventuring. By virtue of not being an NPC class you set yourself up to not be a basket weaver. What's more the rogue gets enough skill points that as long as he is trying to get the relevant skills at all he's going to have skill points left over. If he can get hide/move silently and listen/spot then he already has useful skills maxed out. On top of that he can get shitty skills like Craft: Weaving AND Profession: Merchant, max them out and still have 2 (+ Intelligence Bonus) skill points they can use on more interesting skills that you can use as both a rogue and merchant (Buff/Diplomacy).
Mguy thanks for answering, but I was arguing Dead's points, not yours specifically. You listed a good list of useful vs. useless skills. So at what point is a character a "basket-weaver"? How many 0's must I have? If I have any 3's maxed am I still a "basket-weaver"? According to Dead and GC, it's a pretty clear and obvious line there, do you see it?
As far as the commoner class layout, funny, but that's not even remotely what is being claimed by Dead and GC. They're talking about adventuring PC classes being "basket-weavers" due to non-optimized character choices.
Rogues are skill monkeys, so unless I just don't pick any Rogue skills at all, I won't be a "basket-weaver"?
Ok, how about a Wizard or Cleric. Having spells can they gimp themselves through non-optimized Feat or Skill selection enough to be a "basket-weaver"?
Quote from: MGuy;590726A game like DnD should be able to handle a spellcasterless team. That much is a personal preference of mine.
It can, it's just a very different style of game. It's like Rainbow Six on Hard level; you can't just go charging into rooms anymore, you really have to pick your fights and draw the enemies onto your ground.
QuoteCraft = 0
Decipher Script = 0
Forgery = 0
Perform = 0
Profession = 0
Use Rope = 0
0s are skills that are narrow in scope and aren't very useful at all past opening levels. They are skills that merely buy you plot coupons at best.
I'm curious about a couple of these. Obviously, Craft is
the definitional 'basket-weaver' skill, and of course Perform and Profession are highly situational, not only within a given session, but in regards to the campaign overall. The ones I was wondering about are Forgery, Use Rope and to a lesser extent Decipher Script. Are you saying they don't scale well because the DCs quickly become too high for the skill to reliably work, or they are just too specialized for most tables to make use of them?
Quote from: CRKrueger;590729Ok, how about a Wizard or Cleric. Having spells can they gimp themselves through non-optimized Feat or Skill selection enough to be a "basket-weaver"?
I'm fairly sure Dead isn't for games with only optimized people and nothing for everyone else. GC would be but I'd just suggest you put him on ignore.
A wizard can purposefully gimp them self because a Cleric gets his entire list every day and can always drop a spell for heals.
So what happens when a wizard gets nothing but largely useless spells and only prepared them. Same thing for a Sorcerer. As a wizard you can work to change it easy. As a Sorcerer you're screwed with your choices for life. I will say that that is not good at all. That's not good and it is one of the major draw backs of 3.5 is you could do that kind of thing by accident without even meaning to.
I've seen it happen and if I'm running or playing I will ask that player what they really want to do and attempt to help their characters be good at it. Usually no one wants to make a wizard/sorcerer/etc that can't actually do something helpful and so I would work with them to make their characters effective.
Edit: Forgot to answer your other question. To qualify for the kind of basket weaving I laid out you can't just have all 0s though ahving mostly 0s puts you close. Your character has to be specifically not geared towards doing what your party is doing. A Rogue is a skill tank. A Wizard can have horrible skills and good spell selection and still be functional. Its more about whether or not your character can handle adventuring. A rogue is likely to pick up things the team needs even accidentally so a Rogue is almost never going to be a basket weaver unless they are actively trying to. A Wizard however can do it by accident (as mentioned before) because the spells can be kind of tricky to understand but it is unlikely that someone at the table won't point them in a better direction. To be a basket weaver, at least in the fashion that most people are against, you'd basically have to "try" to build an inappropriate character.A basket weaver is someone who purposefully makes a character bad. Being unoptimized is not a big deal (as evidenced by the fact that people do it all the time) and there are ways around that that don't involve disrupting the game.
First of all, look very closely at MGuy's list. Do you see it? He listed Heal (a skill generally only available to those that can cast curative magic, and that does not do very much even if you entirely lack curative magic) as higher than Tumble (which, while narrow works very well in the "walk briskly away" defense that is standard for shutting down melee in a RAW game).
So yeah, safe to not take him very seriously.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590729Mguy thanks for answering, but I was arguing Dead's points, not yours specifically. You listed a good list of useful vs. useless skills. So at what point is a character a "basket-weaver"? How many 0's must I have? If I have any 3's maxed am I still a "basket-weaver"? According to Dead and GC, it's a pretty clear and obvious line there, do you see it?
There is a clear and obvious line... but it has nothing to do with skills as most of them are entirely useless and even the few that do something aren't that big a deal. Skills are practically a different resource pool than the stuff that actually makes you effective, so the only way you could be a basket weaver regarding skills is to use some resources from your more important pools on skills. Taking a Skill Focus, for example.
Most of the other examples are also clear cut... they're 14 Str melee that think they bring something useful to the table (other than mobile monster chow) and insist this makes them a better roleplayer than if they could actually kill things before they kill them.
QuoteRogues are skill monkeys, so unless I just don't pick any Rogue skills at all, I won't be a "basket-weaver"?
Rogues are automatically basket weavers because a non basket weaver would pick a better class. Any will do, even Monk.
QuoteOk, how about a Wizard or Cleric. Having spells can they gimp themselves through non-optimized Feat or Skill selection enough to be a "basket-weaver"?
Actually, quite easily. Healbot or Fireball spammers = basket weaver, regardless of other choices.
You know, all you're really doing is showing how 3.x is a shit system that should be avoided like the plague. It very well may not be, but all of your posts are arguing about how it is.
Congrats on that.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;590772You know, all you're really doing is showing how 3.x is a shit system that should be avoided like the plague. It very well may not be, but all of your posts are arguing about how it is.
Congrats on that.
No, it's a shit system.
Quote from: Sommerjon;590773No, it's a shit system.
Still less shit than the alternatives, and people actually play it in non negligible numbers, meaning you can have a large enough sample size to pick a small number of good players out of the whole.
It's okay if you don't play it with idiots (much like most systems) but it's often more work for the results you get than I'd like.
Quote from: vytzka;590778It's okay if you don't play it with idiots (much like most systems) but it's often more work for the results you get than I'd like.
This is true, but of all tabletop games. Getting a quality gaming experience takes several times longer in setup than playing a non tabletop game.
Originally Posted by deadDMwalking
I disagree. We're absolutely talking about characters that don't meet the minimum requirements to contribute to the party's success.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590672Defined by who? TGD or GITP Forums? The other players at the table, who?
Quote from: MGuy;590726You know that this thread's title is Define "basket weaver" right? You also should know that I've explained what I'm referring to when I say basket weaver as well. I do not feel it is helpful to debate any subject unless clear definitions exist and I think that I've been pretty explicit in saying that I'm referring to a character that has little to no relevant skills. As dead observed you don't make a professional chef for a game about heroes.
I'm using the same general criteria here. My points are not about 'what makes a Basketweaver', which has already been discussed - they are about what to do with a basketweaver when you have one. An underoptimized character can be just as much a disruption to the game as an overly optimized character.
Of course 'the group' gets to make that decision. Bringing a basketweaver to the game is a lot like brining a Chaotic Evil Rogue to a game with a Paladin at the table - the fact is, they're incompatible. One or the other (or both) have to go. Or, if you choose to allow it, you're going to run into problems down the road. The types of problems have also been discussed, but it tends to be that the 'basketweaver' wants to contribute but lacks the ability to do so... Either the basketweaver is sidelined, or the game is put on 'easy mode' so that suddenly you're killing Bin Laden by baking a meal that he's allergic too, not assaulting the place with guns blazing. That's only alright if that's what everyone signed on for.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590672Like...what. Show me a list of the 3.5 skills that every character must have maxed within the rules to survive. Enough hyperbolic bullshit, list what the hell you mean.
Here you are demanding no 'hyperbolic bullshit' and yet you're the one making the claim that there are skills that need maxed ranks to survive? That is
not my position. For myself, in 3.x, I actually
like skills, and I tend to make highly skilled characters (one reason I dislike the Fighter), but most skills are unnecessary with the availability of magic. Jump is unnecessary if you can
fly. Climb is unnecessary if you can
fly. Hide is mostly unnecessary if you can turn
invisible. Move Silently is mostly unnecessary if you can cast
silence. Diplomacy is mostly unnecessary if you can cast
charm. Ride and Handle Animal don't usually come up much if you're below ground in a dungeon. So, there are
no skills that require max ranks to be survivable.
But it
is possible to make a character that is functionally unable to contribute to the adventuring team. A good example would be insisting on playing a low-level Commoner in a high-level game. Another example would be taking a 'Vow of Non-Violence'.
It's also possible to make a character that
is effective, even if they aren't optimized. For example, in a game based on historical/mythic Iceland/Greenland I played a character who took Aristocrat for his first level. I could have taken a more optimal choice, but it suited the character and the background, and I made some effective choices in other ways so he didn't 'hold the team back' - and in fact, he was able to make contributions as the 'face'.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590672How about you show us an example of a 1st level 3.5 character, any type, that you consider to be a perfect example of this "basket-weaving" character that is a threat to all you hold dear. Then show us a 5th level Rogue who meets the minimum requirements for inclusion in the non-basketweaver club.
Quote from: MGuy;590738I'm fairly sure Dead isn't for games with only optimized people and nothing for everyone else. GC would be but I'd just suggest you put him on ignore.
MGuy is right - I'm not saying you have to be optimized to play or have fun. I am pointing out that each group has a certain style of play that can stretch to some degree to accomodate different play styles. Some styles of play are incompatible with that chosen style of play. A basketweaver is somoene who fails to accomodate themselves to the group norms - and is only one such example. As a result, there is no objective definition of 'this is a basketweaver' because the group's 'center' has to be known. A group of entirely ineffective characters (that might be deemed 'basketweavers in other groups) might actually work together - be aware that they'll be 'way below expected power level', but that's not always a problem. If a group of 10th level characters are struggling to complete adventures designed for 5th level characters, it certainly shows that they're not optimized - but it doesn't mean that they won't have fun.
For myself personally, I like a challenge. I'd rather have a 5th level character struggling to accomplish 10th level challenges than the reverse - I like to overcome difficult challenges - that's fun for me.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590672Just once, in three accursed wasted months, fucking prove something with all your supposed rules knowledge.
What do you want me to prove? What form of proof would you find convincing? Examples from play have been rejected because no matter how reasonable an interpretation might be, the 'DM was bad'. Theoretical examples that illustrate a point have been dismissed as 'not examples of real play'. Pointing out how common an issue is or how often it has been complained about has been dismissed with 'play the game, not the rules'. Pointing out that an issue has been recognized by numerous authorities, including RPG_Pundit are also discarded.
I'd consider 'Fighters in 3.x are sub-optimal compared to any other class, especially clerics and wizars' to have been 'proven' numerous ways and numerous times, but if you disagree, I have no hope that I'll be able to 'prove' anything else to you to your satisfaction. Nor do I feel that is why I'm here. This is a place to discuss games and gaming - a discussion can be productive even if neither side changes their initial position.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590775Still less shit than the alternatives, .
Apparently not, by your own arguments. In other editions, you don't run into gimping because you can't choose to pick worthless skills like you can in 3e. You've spent pages, and weeks, adamantly saying that unless you optimize, you have a gimp character.
In most of the other editions, you don't optimize. Not really. Nothing like 3e. A class in all other editions has core attributes that make it have value, and those can't be chosen to go away. So by your own words, 3e is set up to be a shit system that allows players to build shit builds. A trait no other edition shares.
Hey man, your words. The only question is, why do you insist on playing such a shit system?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;590800Apparently not, by your own arguments. In other editions, you don't run into gimping because you can't choose to pick worthless skills like you can in 3e. You've spent pages, and weeks, adamantly saying that unless you optimize, you have a gimp character.
In most of the other editions, you don't optimize. Not really. Nothing like 3e. A class in all other editions has core attributes that make it have value, and those can't be chosen to go away. So by your own words, 3e is set up to be a shit system that allows players to build shit builds. A trait no other edition shares.
Hey man, your words. The only question is, why do you insist on playing such a shit system?
If you were paying attention, you'd know character value has nothing to do with skills.
If you were really paying attention, you'd know that game value comes from actual depth, and that games in which everyone dies randomly by pure luck are bad.
Of course you are Sacro, you have done none of these things.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;590772You know, all you're really doing is showing how 3.x is a shit system that should be avoided like the plague. It very well may not be, but all of your posts are arguing about how it is.
Congrats on that.
Yeah, 3.0 and 3.5 are probably my least favourite versions of D&D (haven't played/run enough 4th to decide), but reading people like GC or Mistborn with the constant whining about how many classes/skills/feats/spells are broken make the game less and less attractive.
Well, anyway, 99% of the stuff that is discussed as a problem in D&D is nonexistent in RQ :D
Quote from: Mr. GC;590775Still less shit than the alternatives, and people actually play it in non negligible numbers, meaning you can have a large enough sample size to pick a small number of good players out of the whole.
I don't think yoy know much about the alternatives.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590803If you were paying attention, you'd know character value has nothing to do with skills.
If you were really paying attention, you'd know that game value comes from actual depth, and that games in which everyone dies randomly by pure luck are bad.
Of course you are Sacro, you have done none of these things.
If you're going to try to shift the goalposts, you're going to have to better than this weak attempt.
Did you or did you not say, several times, that it's easy to create a gimp character in 3e, and you have to actually try to create a good one by optimizing?
Yes, yes you did say that. That's sort of the crux of your entire argument. And MGuy just got done tying character value to skills. SMH. These are things that do not exist in other editions. Ergo, 3e must be a really shit system because the problems you are bitching about
don't exist in other editions. You are literally bitching about all these problems that are almost exclusively 3.x only.
I keep hoping that you'd have at least an once of integrity, but I guess not. And no, this time I won't give you benefit of the doubt for being a kid. Even my 10 year old has more integrity than you, so it's not an age thing at all.
Quote from: Imperator;590804Yeah, 3.0 and 3.5 are probably my least favourite versions of D&D (haven't played/run enough 4th to decide), but reading people like GC or Mistborn with the constant whining about how many classes/skills/feats/spells are broken make the game less and less attractive.
Well, anyway, 99% of the stuff that is discussed as a problem in D&D is nonexistent in RQ :D
I don't think yoy know much about the alternatives.
I know that they have even fewer good options and even less appeal even with those options.
But really, what do you expect? If you're a tabletop game writer, and your 16 year old son just got a job at McDonalds last week he's probably getting paid more than you. It isn't a field that attracts talent, so of course there's no quality work.
Often, when something good does come of it it's by pure accident... the D&D designers hardly imagined the emergent gameplay that resulted from their ruleset, instead they thought things like "Fighters tank herpityderp, even though we totally forgot to give them aggro mechanics and totally forgot to make them hittable on something better than a negative 10!"
Quote from: Sacrosanct;590597I know you're only like 13 in real life, but here's a hint. When you say something or otherwise make a claim, and someone points out how fundamentally flawed it is? You can't just say something like you just did without coming off as an immature spoiled brat.
Just saying. No one is ever going to take you seriously if on every time you are presented with something that shows how you are wrong, you just dismiss it rather than actually back up what you said in the first place.
If you want to have an adult conversation, start behaving like an adult.
Don't bother. He does not understand.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799I'm using the same general criteria here. My points are not about 'what makes a Basketweaver', which has already been discussed - they are about what to do with a basketweaver when you have one. An underoptimized character can be just as much a disruption to the game as an overly optimized character.
Actually it's not clear at all what a "basketweaver" is. Mguy and GC for example have quite different definitions. You look like you're more in the Mguy camp, which seems to be "I know it when I see it."
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799Of course 'the group' gets to make that decision. Bringing a basketweaver to the game is a lot like brining a Chaotic Evil Rogue to a game with a Paladin at the table - the fact is, they're incompatible. One or the other (or both) have to go. Or, if you choose to allow it, you're going to run into problems down the road. The types of problems have also been discussed, but it tends to be that the 'basketweaver' wants to contribute but lacks the ability to do so... Either the basketweaver is sidelined, or the game is put on 'easy mode' so that suddenly you're killing Bin Laden by baking a meal that he's allergic too, not assaulting the place with guns blazing. That's only alright if that's what everyone signed on for.
So there is no threat from "basketweavers" to gaming as a whole? So you're not with GC to that point?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799So, there are no skills that require max ranks to be survivable.
Ok, we're back to know it when I see it, because there is no set definiton.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799But it is possible to make a character that is functionally unable to contribute to the adventuring team.
Again waiting for a clear-cut definition here, but we all know it's not going to happen.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799A good example would be insisting on playing a low-level Commoner in a high-level game. Another example would be taking a 'Vow of Non-Violence'.
What if the low-level commoner was a local and knew everyone in the city while the other PCs were foreigners? Couldn't that person fill a role like your Aristocrat did?
When you take the various Vows (assuming you're taking from the Book of Exalted Deeds) don't they give you bonuses, like non-violence makes all your non-violent spells harder to resist, Sleeps/Holds/Charms whatever? Aren't there literally hundreds of spells a Cleric/Magic-User could use that don't involve melting faces? I thought one of the key elements of the Fighter v. Wizard debate was that Wizards and Clerics can do anything via spells? The spell slots are limited. I can't melt faces every combat
and do anything via spells, can I? So aren't the Vows something like a personal Geas - meaning I reduce my overall ability to focus on certain things? In any case, I find it hard to believe that a Priestess of a Healing god who took that Vow would be less useful then an Aristocrat.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799It's also possible to make a character that is effective, even if they aren't optimized. For example, in a game based on historical/mythic Iceland/Greenland I played a character who took Aristocrat for his first level. I could have taken a more optimal choice, but it suited the character and the background, and I made some effective choices in other ways so he didn't 'hold the team back' and in fact, he was able to make contributions as the 'face'.
So now what you're saying is - it's not only a different culture at every table, but also highly situational based on what that group is currently doing. So Table-Conditional as well as Campaign-Conditional.
You're moving quickly from "I know it when I see it" to "Mythical internet strawmen that never appears in real life."
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799A basketweaver is somoene who fails to accomodate themselves to the group norms - and is only one such example. As a result, there is no objective definition of 'this is a basketweaver' because the group's 'center' has to be known.
So let me recap. Your definition of basketweaver is...
1. Table-Conditional - It depends group to group.
2. Campaign-Conditional - It some campaigns an Aristocrat may actually be helpful.
3. Is really just a term meaning "disruptive player".
Quote from: deadDMwalking;590799What do you want me to prove? What form of proof would you find convincing?
Well, based on your definition of basket-weaving above, there is no proof to be had, because the definition is not only going to change group by group, but campaign by campaign.
The rest of the stuff you mentioned, I'm pretty sure was left over from Wizard v. Fighter, so will drop it. I will simply say this...
I find the argument that Fighters are worthless coming from a guy who justified playing an Aristocrat to be very interesting.
GC, do you agree with Dead's definition of basket-weaver?
Quote from: CRKrueger;590811GC, do you agree with Dead's definition of basket-weaver?
Nope, most people are using an entirely non standard definition of the term. At least we've mostly gotten away from the literal basket weaving, but he's still talking about something else entirely from what those words actually mean.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590816Nope, most people are using an entirely non standard definition of the term. At least we've mostly gotten away from the literal basket weaving, but he's still talking about something else entirely from what those words actually mean.
Ok, can you give an example of a couple 5th level characters that are "basket-weavers"? One caster and one non-caster, include feat and spell selection. I'm asking because this is obviously not a CharOp board.
It's hard to discuss things when no one is clear exactly what we're talking about.
Quote from: Imperator;590804Well, anyway, 99% of the stuff that is discussed as a problem in D&D is nonexistent in RQ :D
Runequest? Swine! :)
What are your opinions on Openquest?
Quote from: CRKrueger;590819Ok, can you give an example of a couple 5th level characters that are "basket-weavers"? One caster and one non-caster, include feat and spell selection. I'm asking because this is obviously not a CharOp board.
It's hard to discuss things when no one is clear exactly what we're talking about.
Here's some severe basket weavers:
Fighter 5, Longsword and shield, other choices don't actually matter as that's enough for them to qualify - or more to the point nothing would save such a character from failure.
Wizard 5, Evoker specialist, banned schools: Any non Enchantment but let's say Conjuration and Transmutation to really double down on the derp. Again, that's more than sufficient. Just the fact he spams Fireball and literally can't cast the good spells is enough.
Less extreme examples exist, such as a Fighter using a two hander like he's supposed to but not loading up on charge and/or trip stuff so he still can't do anything but since the core of the basket weaver mentality is that the character should suck and so should everyone else they typically don't do it only halfway.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590826Fighter 5, Longsword and shield, other choices don't actually matter as that's enough for them to qualify - or more to the point nothing would save such a character from failure.
Ok, so what are the key weapon and feat selections for a 5th level fighter?
Quote from: Mr. GC;590826Wizard 5, Evoker specialist, banned schools: Any non Enchantment but let's say Conjuration and Transmutation to really double down on the derp. Again, that's more than sufficient. Just the fact he spams Fireball and literally can't cast the good spells is enough.
Ok, so what are the absolute must-have spells for a 5th level wizard?
Quote from: CRKrueger;590830Ok, so what are the key weapon and feat selections for a 5th level fighter?
First of all, you don't be a 5th level Fighter. That's 75% of a basket weaver on the spot.
Second you get yourself a two handed reach weapon (ideally a spiked chain, polearms are passable), pick charge or trip, and take a bunch of stuff for them. I don't think you can actually have the charge stuff at this level, but the trip stuff is generally obvious (Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip... it ends up costing a lot of feats).
QuoteOk, so what are the absolute must-have spells for a 5th level wizard?
In core only your main offensive spells are going to be Glitterdust, Web, Slow, and perhaps Stinking Cloud at that level with stuff like Fly used for support. Non core, offense doesn't really change but a few more utility effects become available like Nerveskitter. Regardless, if you're doing it right your total damage output is at or very near 0.
The main difference is that a Fighter, or any non caster is entirely unplayable in core. A Wizard, or the main full casters get most of their power from core.
Skills though aren't a factor at all. I let skills do more than a basket weaver DM would* and they're still not that great.
* - Examples include raising Craft (armor) up to +8 at character creation so as to allow for saving 7k on a mithril full plate at character creation for a mid level character, and Handle Animal around +7 or +8 so you can no fail all the relevant checks to train and command a Magebred Warbeast Fleshraker, which is like a Fighter but actually competent and cheap and available at every level in which attack for HP damage matters. A basket weaver DM would get offended if you used Craft (armor) to save money and the skill is useless unless you can abuse it at character creation like this, and a basket weaver DM would get really offended if you correctly illustrated that for a sub 1k fee you can get a better party member than that gimp over there. Even with a non basket weaver DM, that's the ceiling on those skill's usefulness - there's nothing to gain from further investment.
Ok, so let's open up to non-core, and give unrestricted access to all WotC products for 3.5 - what's one exact build for "GC's perfect non-Basketweaving Fighter-type character." at level 5? or a higher level if you want.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590826Here's some severe basket weavers:
Fighter 5, Longsword and shield, other choices don't actually matter as that's enough for them to qualify - or more to the point nothing would save such a character from failure..
Yeah, you're not saying 3.x is a shit system at all... :rolleyes:
If a core class is gimped by default, then it's a shit system. Congratulations, you've managed to make a strong argument that your favorite system is objectively the worst version of D&D out there.
Quote from: CRKrueger;590835Ok, so let's open up to non-core, and give unrestricted access to all WotC products for 3.5 - what's one exact build for "GC's perfect non-Basketweaving Fighter-type character." at level 5? or a higher level if you want.
Let's see... level 5 means attack for HP damage is still relevant. I'll skip the obvious answer of that dinosaur I just mentioned.
So you go Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barb 1/Hit and Run Fighter 2 (optionally with Dungeoncrasher)/Filler 2 (could be one of the Monk variants, could be feat Rogue... probably not that one though).
Lion Totem gets Pounce. You cannot be a relevant melee without this. It is not possible. That's the easiest way by far of getting it. Whirling Frenzy is essentially a better Rage (there are some that will tell you it isn't, they are morons). The hit and run Fighter variant loses nothing important and gains +2 Init. For the filler, it largely depends on what feats you need.
Race you go Water Orc, gold standard for melee, and throw on Dragonborn while you're at it. Yes, this requires some odd alignment explaining, possibly more than once. You're a non caster, get used to having to justify your existence at every turn.
So at level 5 you have a Str of 26, and two attacks which you can both use consistently. This means you might actually be a threat. You also have something like 52 HP so you might survive one round of combat (probably not two though).
Str also influences both Dungeoncrashing and tripping, so that's nice. Dungeoncrashing is kind of pointless unless you're going Goliath, as otherwise you can't take Knockback. Goliath eats 1 level and otherwise isn't really better than the Dragonborn Water Orc.
Note that even with this, you still only have a remaining shelf life of 2-4 levels at best.
Quote from: StormBringer;590611I wouldn't hold my breath; he essentially copy and pastes whatever Frank Trollman says. Recent complaints about Fighters causing Clerics to see the future less or summon fewer angels was just about word for word from the Trollman quote he has in his sig over at TGD. Frank channels Edwards' 'brain damage' line, Mr GC faithfully parrots Frank, and we have to listen to nonsense about optimizers are more organized in real life, hence, better people.
Mr GC fails to realize that Frank is merely presenting his obsession with neatness and organization as a virtue rather than a complete pain in the ass like it actually is.
Nah according to Frank, Mr. GC = Mr. BPD, also known as...Roy! dumdumdummmmm!
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53689&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=425
See? He's just a trolley troll mctrollenstein with severe mental issues.
Quote from: EddieValentine;590841Nah according to Frank, Mr. GC = Mr. BPD, also known as...Roy! dumdumdummmmm!
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53689&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=425
See? He's just a trolley troll mctrollenstein with severe mental issues.
Awesome. I was pretty sure that level of disturbance doesn't occur with the frequency necessary for there to be more than one of them in a population sample as small as theRPGsite and TGD combined.
Although, I have no idea who this Roy is, although the name rings a bell. Too much pent up rage for it to be a complete stranger though.
I love how Mr. One Post guy is instantly taken as legit, just because he's bitching about me.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590775Still less shit than the alternatives.
You have not exhibited any knowledge whatsoever of the alternatives.
even if you had, I would very much doubt you were familiar with 99% of the RPg systems released ocommercially or online over the last 30 years.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590784Getting a quality gaming experience takes several times longer in setup than playing a non tabletop game.
Nah, some of my best games have been spur of the moment freestyle play.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590853I love how Mr. One Post guy is instantly taken as legit, just because he's bitching about me.
What about all those other people he linked to? Are they not legit either? Who cares what this one guy here said. We're all reading that thread, and what everyone else has to say.
Can't say I'm shocked. Although maybe this finally means you'll get banned for site disruption, since you're obviously only here to troll.
Quote from: TristramEvans;590858You have not exhibited any knowledge whatsoever of the alternatives.
even if you had, I would very much doubt you were familiar with 99% of the RPg systems released ocommercially or online over the last 30 years.
The funny thing is none of that matters. People here are seriously claiming D&D, and a specific edition of D&D at that is the only tabletop game with trap options. That's a laughable claim.
Every game of every type has trap options. Tabletop games just have a lot more of them in general because the field doesn't attract talent.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590862The funny thing is none of that matters. People here are seriously claiming D&D, and a specific edition of D&D at that is the only tabletop game with trap options. That's a laughable claim.
Every game of every type has trap options. Tabletop games just have a lot more of them in general because the field doesn't attract talent.
What's a "trap option"?
Quote from: TristramEvans;590868What's a "trap option"?
Really? You don't even know what that term means after all this time?
A trap option is something that seems good but is actually a trap. All this stuff about bad classes, bad feats, bad weapons... trap options.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590853I love how Mr. One Post guy is instantly taken as legit, just because he's bitching about me.
No, it's because he provided a link. You know, that 'evidence' thing we have to keep reminding you about.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590870Really? You don't even know what that term means after all this time?
after all
what time? I've mostly been out having a life, I'm only online maybe 2 hours a day tops, and I don't spend all that time reading these threads.
QuoteA trap option is something that seems good but is actually a trap. All this stuff about bad classes, bad feats, bad weapons... trap options.
Okay, so something MOST RPGs don't have.
Also, I thought Basketweaving was a choice ("lifestyle" I think someone said)? Now you're saying the game itself creates "traps"; doesn't that imply there are no Basketweavers, just people who don't know how a shitty system is going to screw them over?
Quote from: TristramEvans;590878Also, I thought Basketweaving was a choice ("lifestyle" I think someone said)? Now you're saying the game itself creates "traps"; doesn't that imply there are no Basketweavers, just people who don't know how a shitty system is going to screw them over?
Hey, if you follow through on the logical consequences of his statements, he will just flip out again.
Quote from: TristramEvans;590878after all what time? I've mostly been out having a life, I'm only online maybe 2 hours a day tops, and I don't spend all that time reading these threads.
All this time this and other threads have been going on and all this time you personally have been participating in them.
QuoteOkay, so something MOST RPGs don't have.
:rotfl:
QuoteAlso, I thought Basketweaving was a choice ("lifestyle" I think someone said)? Now you're saying the game itself creates "traps"; doesn't that imply there are no Basketweavers, just people who don't know how a shitty system is going to screw them over?
Nope. If someone blunders into the traps unwittingly, they're not a basket weaver. Someone who willingly walks into them/believes they should exist/tries to lie and say they don't exist, typically to lure others into taking them? They are indeed basket weavers.
The people that blunder into them by accident will correct their mistakes once aware of them. Those that endorse those mistakes? Not so much.
Quote from: EddieValentine;590841Nah according to Frank, Mr. GC = Mr. BPD, also known as...Roy! dumdumdummmmm!
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53689&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=425
See? He's just a trolley troll mctrollenstein with severe mental issues.
Turns out the Den is less bad than I thought. Even though it did take GC to show it in comparison so if it's not damning with faint praise I don't know what is.
Quote from: vytzka;590961Turns out the Den is less bad than I thought. Even though it did take GC to show it in comparison so if it's not damning with faint praise I don't know what is.
I misspoke earlier in the thread by overgeneralizing to add some humour to the discussion. The posters there aren't really terribly different than anywhere else, certainly not as different from here as it sometimes seems. And they are pretty damn good about teasing out small mistakes, moderate flaws, and catastrophic rules convergences alike.
When they get on a roll, however, it's similar to reading an entire language made of shibboleths derived almost entirely from moderate to severe clanging. ;)
Quote from: Mr. GC;590808I know that they have even fewer good options and even less appeal even with those options.
I highly doubt you have any such knowledge. I don't think you know how RuneQuest (any edition) works, or Call of Cthulhu, or Vampire or... well, any game.
Actually, an given how the only thing that matters to you is how abstract numeric values run in simulations against other numeric values with no background, environmental modifiers or other factors added in, I would doubt you know anything about the roleplaying part of the game, at all.
QuoteBut really, what do you expect? If you're a tabletop game writer, and your 16 year old son just got a job at McDonalds last week he's probably getting paid more than you. It isn't a field that attracts talent, so of course there's no quality work.
This is a very cretinous thing to say, which comes to show how you don't have an actual clue on how human beings work. You get to sound more and more like a pedantic version of C3PO, with each post, if C3PO was obsessed with games and number crunching instead of good manners.
Specially in this Internet age where you can find projects like Wikipedia where most contributors are not paid, but you can find (apart from shit articles and flames, of course) really talented people and experts making contributions.
There is no relation between talent and salary, and pretending that shows that you are a dumbot. If you can stand reading about human beings being human, I recommend you "Drive" by Dan H. Pink, to better understand what motivates people to do stuff.
By the way, the book explains why people can get different things from a game, from charopping to emulation to other things. It's a very good read.
Quote from: StormBringer;590823Runequest? Swine! :)
What are your opinions on Openquest?
I think is pretty sweet. If RQ is too crunchy for you, OQ is the way to go. It's very ellegant and streamlined, and I definitely recommend it. Pseudoephedrine has several great articles on it on his blog, and I got to know it due to his recommendations.
I'd run RQ (either AH RQ or MRQ II, or probably RQ 6 when I get it) before OQ, but just because I already know them by heart. OQ is totally great.
Quote from: EddieValentine;590841Nah according to Frank, Mr. GC = Mr. BPD, also known as...Roy! dumdumdummmmm!
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53689&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=425
See? He's just a trolley troll mctrollenstein with severe mental issues.
From the link:
QuoteI'm pretty sure that he was banned because he refused to stop spamming posts that were empty except for "Hi, Welcome" over and over again. In short, he got convinced that he was in some sort of Fantasy argument that he was going to "win" by repeatedly spamming the board with Passive Aggressive "Hi, Welcomes" (itself an apparently meaningless term that he thought would have some resonance with other people because of personal associations he apparently had plus Projection). Then when the moderator asked him to stop doing that, he began Acting Out by daring the ban hammer just by doing it even more.
:jaw-dropping:
I've seen that before... was it in the Fighter v.Wizard thread? Was it here? Correlation is not necessarily causation. But it raises some real questions!
I'm not sure what part of this is most hilarious - the part where a one post sock puppet makes accusations of sock puppetry and is immediately regarded as totally legit, the part where "OMG, some guy I don't like is actually some other guy that some other people don't like!" is taken as if it means something to you personally, or the part where people here try their own take on the armchair shrink, including such highlights as "Wikipedia is a credible source, honest."
What next, Fox News is a quality source of unbiased information?
The sun is cold?
Basket weavers don't suck at everything?
Quote from: Mr. GC;590989I'm not sure what part of this is most hilarious - the part where a one post sock puppet makes accusations of sock puppetry and is immediately regarded as totally legit, the part where "OMG, some guy I don't like is actually some other guy that some other people don't like!" is taken as if it means something to you personally, or the part where people here try their own take on the armchair shrink, including such highlights as "Wikipedia is a credible source, honest."
What next, Fox News is a quality source of unbiased information?
The sun is cold?
Basket weavers don't suck at everything?
Didn't you deny being a poster at the den? Assert that swamps don't have trees? Claim to have completely described a scenario where it was clear that you did not (on this site, at least)?
Seems that contradictions should be something you can handle, and I don't see how your calling them out contributes much.
Quote from: mcbobbo;590993Didn't you deny being a poster at the den? Assert that swamps don't have trees? Claim to have completely described a scenario where it was clear that you did not (on this site, at least)?
Seems that contradictions should be something you can handle, and I don't see how your calling them out contributes much.
I denied being a Denner. Which is true. What I actually said was that I post there but don't identify with them. Which is also true. You're starting to see why now what with them entirely unable to handle basic in game scenarios.
I denied that the swamp being discussed has trees because it doesn't (and at the same time pointed out that people were arguing to destroy their own arguments).
For the last thing I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
So you see, the contradictions exist only in your own mind, much like how basket weavers think they are good players.
Quote from: Bill;590810Don't bother. He does not understand.
I am starting to think this is very true.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590803If you were really paying attention, you'd know that game value comes from actual depth,
If game value(of type III D&D) comes from actual depth, why use so little of the system?
Quote from: Mr. GC;590803and that games in which everyone dies randomly by pure luck are bad.
Hmmm, this makes me start to assume things about you.
Do you not like to play at low level where random die rolls 'of pure luck' can kill you? Is that what this means?
Quote from: Mr. GC;590808Often, when something good does come of it it's by pure accident... the D&D designers hardly imagined the emergent gameplay that resulted from their ruleset, instead they thought things like "Fighters tank herpityderp, even though we totally forgot to give them aggro mechanics and totally forgot to make them hittable on something better than a negative 10!"
Yet you think type III D&D is the shnizzle? This system where AC and HP by level 5 is completely worthless? Where BAB is worthless? Where skills are worthless? Where the only thing that truly matters is spells?
Quote from: Sommerjon;590999I am starting to think this is very true.
If game value(of type III D&D) comes from actual depth, why use so little of the system?Hmmm, this makes me start to assume things about you.
Do you not like to play at low level where random die rolls 'of pure luck' can kill you? Is that what this means?
Yet you think type II D&D is the shnizzle? This system where AC and HP by level 5 is completely worthless? Where BAB is worthless? Where skills are worthless? Where the only thing that truly matters is spells?
You still haven't explained what those terms actually mean, so I am going to ignore them.
That said: Yes, I despise being screwed over by bad luck, as do all good players.
As for the flaws in D&D: Yes, BAB was severely overvalued. AC and HP alone are useless because you can't get enough of either of those things, and the only way to do anything, including survive attacks is spells. All of this is true by RAW.
Now, what makes you think I play RAW, especially given I've specifically said I don't and specifically said I houserule the game to fix these very problems?
And yeah sure, it's not perfect. Even with massive buffs skills still suck fairly badly but at least are not entirely useless, which in turn means non casters can't do that much besides fight.
If you want an actual array of options you still do have to be a caster as that's the only way you'll get a large amount of meaningful tricks. This is an unavoidable flaw of RPGs as a whole, not even tabletop games or D&D.
But you can make someone who both does not cast spells and does not embarrass themselves. Someone that can actually take a round or two of attacks and live.
In other words, you can make HP and AC matter, so surviving isn't Mirror Image/miss chance/Abrupt Jaunt/Wings of Cover... or GTFO.
So what happens is the level 8 melee guy has like 130 HP and an AC around 40 or so, and he doesn't need to be babysat by his party, he can handle himself. He still can't "tank" of course, as enemies will attack whoever they think is the greatest threat and even if he's spamming Wraithstrike PAs that probably is not him. But if something does attack him, he won't just fuck off and die like a non caster in a RAW game would.
And even in a RAW game, making it all spellcaster vs spellcaster actually only removes about 10% of the game by diverse content, and it's the least interesting 10%, so you're not losing that much depth wise. However it's also a solved equation, so there's little to be gained by playing it.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590997So you see, the contradictions exist only in your own mind, much like how basket weavers think they are good players.
Here's a contradiction that ought to be floating around in your own mind:
a) Basketweavers are bad players
b) You possess adequate eloquence and perseverance to argue this point across multiple Internet forums for dozens of hours, at least
c) Nobody seems convinced
d) You continue to try
Why?
Quote from: Mr. GC;590989I'm not sure what part of this is most hilarious - the part where a one post sock puppet makes accusations of sock puppetry and is immediately regarded as totally legit, the part where "OMG, some guy I don't like is actually some other guy that some other people don't like!" is taken as if it means something to you personally, or the part where people here try their own take on the armchair shrink, including such highlights as "Wikipedia is a credible source, honest."
What next, Fox News is a quality source of unbiased information?
The sun is cold?
Basket weavers don't suck at everything?
I'll tell you what is hilarious. You are.
It is hilarious to see a sad sack of shit crawl out of the woodwork to school us on how a good player plays when it is painfully obvious that you have no actual experience with anything paart 3.5. It is hilarious to see how you boast of being an Internet warrior when you are just a sad laughingstock everywhere.
Everywhere. You have failed to persuade anybody, anywhere. You are a laughingstock here, you are a buffoon at the Den, and probably everyone laughs at you every time you show up at a messageboard boasting how no one gets to "your level."
And the most hilarious thing is how, in the process of trying to show how 3.5 is TEH BEST GAME EVAR you make it look like a pile of shit.The more you whine and complain about how it is rotten to the core, how core classes don't work, skills that don't work, spells and feats and... someone who reads oyur screeds can only ask himself, why bother?
You are the worst defender of D&D that ever wrote on a messageboard :D For fuck's sake, D&D was not my favourite fantasy RPG, and 3.x was my least favourite version of it, but you are making me more and more happy of not wasting my time with it EVER. :D
That is why you are hilarious. Probably you don't game as much as you pretend, and if you do, is probably an experience in misery for you and your fellow players.
And you think of yourself as someone who culls gimps :D How are you culling them, buffoon, making them laugh at you until they die?
Quote from: Sommerjon;590999Yet you think type II D&D is the shnizzle? This system where AC and HP by level 5 is completely worthless? Where BAB is worthless? Where skills are worthless? Where the only thing that truly matters is spells?
Seriously, he should stop defending 3.5, because he's making every other game look well by comparison.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591003Here's a contradiction that ought to be floating around in your own mind:
a) Basketweavers are bad players
b) You possess adequate eloquence and perseverance to argue this point across multiple Internet forums for dozens of hours, at least
c) Nobody seems convinced
d) You continue to try
Why?
Because part C is wrong. Basket Weavers are impervious to logic and reason of course. However not everyone is a Basket Weaver. Just almost everyone. If even one good player gets the message, it was all worth it.
And for everyone else... they are entertaining at least, so their complete lack of objective value isn't a total loss.
Quote from: Imperator;591004I'll tell you what is hilarious. You are.
It is hilarious to see a sad sack of shit crawl out of the woodwork to school us on how a good player plays when it is painfully obvious that you have no actual experience with anything paart 3.5. It is hilarious to see how you boast of being an Internet warrior when you are just a sad laughingstock everywhere. Everywhere. You have failed to persuade anybody, anywhere. You are a laughingstock here, you are a buffoon at the Den, and probably everyone laughs at you every time you show up at a messageboard boasting how no one gets to "your level."
And the most hilarious thing is how, in the process of trying to show how 3.5 is TEH BEST GAME EVAR you make it look like a pile of shit.The more you whine and complain about how it is rotten to the core, how core classes don't work, skills that don't work, spells and feats and... someone who reads oyur screeds can only ask himself, why bother?
You are the worst defender of D&D that ever wrote on a messageboard :D For fuck's sake, D&D was not my favourite fantasy RPG, and 3.x was my least favourite version of it, but you are making me more and more happy of not wasting my time with it EVER. :D
That is why you are hilarious. Probably you don't game as much as you pretend, and if you do, is probably an experience in misery for you and your fellow players.
And you think of yourself as someone who culls gimps :D How are you culling them, buffoon, making them laugh at you until they die?
Seriously, he should stop defending 3.5, because he's making every other game look well by comparison.
3.5 can't be defended with a straight face. It's all humor.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591005Because part C is wrong. Basket Weavers are impervious to logic and reason of course. However not everyone is a Basket Weaver. Just almost everyone. If even one good player gets the message, it was all worth it.
And for everyone else... they are entertaining at least, so their complete lack of objective value isn't a total loss.
Can you identify a single convert on this site?
Because I do feel that parts were wrong, but I am not thinking 'c'.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591003Here's a contradiction that ought to be floating around in your own mind:
a) Basketweavers are bad players
b) You possess adequate eloquence and perseverance to argue this point across multiple Internet forums for dozens of hours, at least
c) Nobody seems convinced
d) You continue to try
Why?
Because Mr. GC is only here to troll, that is why.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590989I'm not sure what part of this is most hilarious - the part where a one post sock puppet makes accusations of sock puppetry and is immediately regarded as totally legit,
As was mentioned before by no less than 2 people, no one cares that the person only has 1 post or is a sockpuppet. He didn't create a phantom site in his link and make up all of those other posts did he?
The fact is, is that even at TGD you are joke. What was it they said? The only non-spambot to be banned? As much as I disagree with Frank on just about everything, it appears that he was 100% right on you.
So you are either 1 of 2 things: a troll, or someone with legitimate serious mental issues.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591010Can you identify a single convert on this site?
Because I do feel that parts were wrong, but I am not thinking 'c'.
It's possible there are no salvagable players here, which puts this as a strictly entertainment value thing. Then again there is at least one person here capable of holding a discussion without going full retard so perhaps it is not completely hopeless.
In any case if there were a good player here, or more than one I would not identify them as that would only cause them to be harassed constantly by the basket weavers.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;591015As was mentioned before by no less than 2 people, no one cares that the person only has 1 post or is a sockpuppet. He didn't create a phantom site in his link and make up all of those other posts did he?
The fact is, is that even at TGD you are joke. What was it they said? The only non-spambot to be banned? As much as I disagree with Frank on just about everything, it appears that he was 100% right on you.
So you are either 1 of 2 things: a troll, or someone with legitimate serious mental issues.
And suddenly the Den is a credible source just because it says something that you happen to agree with, that right?
I don't think it's a coincidence that the two biggest supporters of the "Mr. GC is actually a Misty sockpuppet." thing that happened when I first came here are suddenly in support of a different sock puppet with a different accusation of sock puppetry. Else why flip from such a zealous anti sock puppetry stance to rampantly supporting a very obvious one?
One of those S noobs went and made an alt just to troll. Much more believable, don't you think?
Quote from: Mr. GC;591018It's possible there are no salvagable players here, which puts this as a strictly entertainment value thing. Then again there is at least one person here capable of holding a discussion without going full retard so perhaps it is not completely hopeless.
In any case if there were a good player here, or more than one I would not identify them as that would only cause them to be harassed constantly by the basket weavers.
And suddenly the Den is a credible source just because it says something that you happen to agree with, that right?
I don't think it's a coincidence that the two biggest supporters of the "Mr. GC is actually a Misty sockpuppet." thing that happened when I first came here are suddenly in support of a different sock puppet with a different accusation of sock puppetry. Else why flip from such a zealous anti sock puppetry stance to rampantly supporting a very obvious one?
One of those S noobs went and made an alt just to troll. Much more believable, don't you think?
Banning someone here for what they said on another site would be a first I think, and probably not gonna happen (unless it was Stormfront or Nambla or something).
However, if you're not Roy, who got banned for spamming "Hi, welcome.", why did you do the exact same thing here? Playing Roy for Halloween?
Quote from: Mr. GC;591018And suddenly the Den is a credible source just because it says something that you happen to agree with, that right?
No, the real reason they are credible is because in that thread that was linked, there were quotes from
you admitting you were a sockpuppet. Can't get much more legit than that, can we?
QuoteI don't think it's a coincidence that the two biggest supporters of the "Mr. GC is actually a Misty sockpuppet."
Wrong yet again. I said you were a sock of MGuy. And funny enough, it just came out that one of the things you did to get banned there was spam "Welcome" over and over again to every response, is eerily similar to what MGuy did by spamming "translated" over and over again here.
I don't have any proof, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that just like Frank said, every time you get called on your bullshit, you whip up this really weird storm of denial and try to change the topic to something unrelated, the whole time claiming victory.
Seriously. Sit back and ask yourself, "Does anyone actually believe any of my bullshit?" Because you'll find the answer is no, with maybe the exception of Lord Mistborn, who is just as retarded as you are. The overwhelming majority of any site you've joined thinks you have mental issues. That should be a sign that you need to reevaluate something.
I haven't spammed Hi Welcome here. I've used that phrase about... once. Misty, and possibly others used it more frequently.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590997I denied being a Denner. Which is true. What I actually said was that I post there but don't identify with them. Which is also true.
Yes, you did deny being a Denner, that is true. Which means you were flat out lying. When someone takes their car to the store to pick up groceries, but claims they don't 'identify' with the other people in their own cars, that doesn't mean the person can legitimately deny being a 'driver'. Taking actions that place you with a certain cohort means that you really, really are a member of that group, no matter how sincere or vehement your protestations to the contrary.
QuoteYou're starting to see why now what with them entirely unable to handle basic in game scenarios.
It's absolutely not because you insist on wholly bizarre concepts such as a 'shadow demon' and a 'Shadow Demon' are two completely and fundamentally different things because capital letters. That can't be it. It has to be
everyone else's mendacity.
Quote from: StormBringer;591024Yes, you did deny being a Denner, that is true. Which means you were flat out lying. When someone takes their car to the store to pick up groceries, but claims they don't 'identify' with the other people in their own cars, that doesn't mean the person can legitimately deny being a 'driver'. Taking actions that place you with a certain cohort means that you really, really are a member of that group, no matter how sincere or vehement your protestations to the contrary.
It's absolutely not because you insist on wholly bizarre concepts such as a 'shadow demon' and a 'Shadow Demon' are two completely and fundamentally different things because capital letters. That can't be it. It has to be everyone else's mendacity.
And if a person were named Person, you could not handle that person refers to the general sense and Person refers to the proper name of someone whose parents hated them. That right? I figured you'd be all in favor of sperglord pedantic bullshit.
Also, bad liar, stop lying.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591023I haven't spammed Hi Welcome here. I've used that phrase about... once. Misty, and possibly others used it more frequently.
Actually, you said it twice, but whatever.
So, for the record, you're claiming you are
not this Roy character they're talking about?
Quote from: Mr. GC;590989I'm not sure what part of this is most hilarious - the part where a one post sock puppet makes accusations of sock puppetry and is immediately regarded as totally legit, the part where "OMG, some guy I don't like is actually some other guy that some other people don't like!" is taken as if it means something to you personally, or the part where people here try their own take on the armchair shrink, including such highlights as "Wikipedia is a credible source, honest."
What next, Fox News is a quality source of unbiased information?
The sun is cold?
Basket weavers don't suck at everything?
No sock puppet here. Just a casual gamer who started gaming again recently after being unable to for several years. I was looking for a decent board to participate in when I came across you.
And you make a fascinating character study in attention whore-ism. Your multiple aliases across multiple boards. All with the same abhorrent and delusional mindset. From your vitriolic attitude, your smug sense of superiority, to your completely unwarranted ego and undeserved sense of accomplishment. I particularly love your motivation, to find the one asshole in the universe who you can inspire to be as great an asshole as you one say. Priceless.
I know attention whores. I employ a lot of them. Hell, in my business it's practically a requirement. The difference between them and you is they provide some value for it. Talent that people are willing to pay for when they exhibit theur "look at me!" behaviors.
As far as basket weavers go, you're just like them except on the opposite end of the spectrum. Selfish, playing only for themselves only you do it through ultra optimization in your own little homebrew world of selfish samples decrying how every other game is broken and ducky except for our one true perfect fantasy Portland
Quote from: EddieValentine;591029No sock puppet here. Just a casual gamer who started gaming again recently after being unable to for several years. I was looking for a decent board to participate in when I came across you.
Yes, you've been entirely out of the gaming loop all this time and yet mysteriously know all of this stuff. Uh huh. So, Stormbringer or Sacrosanct?
Quote from: CRKrueger;591028Actually, you said it twice, but whatever.
So, for the record, you're claiming you are not this Roy character they're talking about?
I've actually neither confirmed
nor denied it. Much more entertaining that way, as Mr. Alt accusing people of Alting is directly demonstrating.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591031Yes, you've been entirely out of the gaming loop all this time and yet mysteriously know all of this stuff. Uh huh. So, Stormbringer or Sacrosanct?
I said the same thing about you re: why you have a quote in your sig from before you joined. So, if we are to believe you that you just lurked for a while before joining, why shouldn't we believe him?
Quote from: Mr. GC;591032I've actually neither confirmed nor denied it. Much more entertaining that way, as Mr. Alt accusing people of Alting is directly demonstrating.
Riiight, so it's you. Ok. At least you're being consistent.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;591033I said the same thing about you re: why you have a quote in your sig from before you joined. So, if we are to believe you that you just lurked for a while before joining, why shouldn't we believe him?
I wasn't out of the gaming loop. I just wasn't able to post in those threads because by the time I was done reading them they were locked.
Of course you cannot understand the difference, or at least will pretend you cannot because you've found your third stooge.
Quote from: CRKrueger;591034Riiight, so it's you. Ok. At least you're being consistent.
Not to interrupt a good basket weaver irrelevant tangent, but whatever happened to you discussing different builds and what is required to make them non basket weaver builds? I suspect you were doing that so you could make something that passes the "Not a basket weaver." check but is still a useless build that cannot contribute to actual play but that's still more entertaining than watching you try and mindlessly copy the Den, while bitching about those that mindlessly copy the Den (except not really).
Quote from: Mr. GC;591018In any case if there were a good player here, or more than one I would not identify them as that would only cause them to be harassed constantly by the basket weavers.
Oh yeah, sure. Of course, your followers and the legions of gamers persuaded by your rethoric have to reamin hidden lest people say meanie things to them
:D
You cannot even pass the Turing test, mate.
and we're back to jumping the shark.
Now that said, if anyone has evidence of sockpuppeting, PM the mods or Pundit. BTW, he sounds a bit like...or 'this guy on another forum said...' is not evidence.
Quote from: Imperator;591040Oh yeah, sure. Of course, your followers and the legions of gamers persuaded by your rethoric have to reamin hidden lest people say meanie things to them
:D
You cannot even pass the Turing test, mate.
And yet that's exactly what happened. More than once.
Quote from: One Horse Town;591043and we're back to jumping the shark.
Now that said, if anyone has evidence of sockpuppeting, PM the mods or Pundit. BTW, he sounds a bit like...or 'this guy on another forum said...' is not evidence.
I don't think him being or not being a sock is really important at this point (other than being one of the only reasons to be banned here). I think what's more important is that looking at everything that's happened, and the posting style, he's here only to troll the board.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590886All this time this and other threads have been going on and all this time you personally have been participating in them.
Doesn't mean I wade through all the long-winded posts discussing the mechanics of a broken system I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
Quote:rotfl:
Lets try this then: see if you can name three other systems besides D&d-derivatives that have "traps" or the concept of "optimization" even applies.
I won't be holding my breath.
QuoteNope. If someone blunders into the traps unwittingly, they're not a basket weaver. Someone who willingly walks into them/believes they should exist/tries to lie and say they don't exist, typically to lure others into taking them? They are indeed basket weavers.
at this point I'm pretty sure basketweavers are just the product of your imagination.
I think what's important here is that people on the Den only started taking that claim seriously after Misty posted an easily fakeable exchange, at which point they went from entirely ignoring the one guy who occasionally brought it up to accepting it as gospel en masse, and now you have some people here that are suddenly taking it as gospel as well.
Difference is, wanting to know whether or not the person who is bad touching you now is someone who did so in the past is understandable. Wanting to know whether some guy you don't like is some other unlikable guy you never heard of just makes you look stupid no matter what is actually going on.
Now this is Stormbringer and Sacrosanct we're talking about. They're well used to looking, feeling, and being stupid. Even so, their motivations are quite transparent for going on this little tangent and it ties right back into that basket weaver thing.
See, basket weavers are utterly adverse to objectivity. So when some is being displayed, such as say "Team Gimp vs Standard Adventuring Day" it's like an allergic reaction. They start lashing out, doing all manner of crazy, sad, and pathetic things just to get rid of it via any means possible before it comes to a conclusion. If this sounds like crazy talk, I agree. It is. It also is ultimately true, because this is what basket weavers actually do and actually have done on many such occasions.
The only reason they're latching onto it so strongly is because Mr. Now Two Posts is telling them what they want to hear and is giving them an easy way out. If he said anything else, he'd get accused of being some sock puppet of mine (much like That Guy was just because he was neutral and ambivalent instead of overtly hostile).
Quote from: TristramEvans;591054Lets try this then: see if you can name three other systems besides D&d-derivatives that have "traps" or the concept of "optimization" even applies.
I won't be holding my breath.
So I can just select any 3 non D&D games at random and automatically be right? Let's see... Vampire, Mage, 7th Sea. That was easy.
Quoteat this point I'm pretty sure basketweavers are just the product of your imagination.
If only I could disbelieve in you and you'd just go away.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591061So I can just select any 3 non D&D games at random and automatically be right? Let's see... Vampire, Mage, 7th Sea. That was easy.
Well, two of those are the same game system, but I won't be picky. Explain the traps in these games.
QuoteIf only I could disbelieve in you and you'd just go away.
You can. It's called an Ignore List. Or not posting on this site.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591059See, basket weavers are utterly adverse to objectivity. So when some is being displayed, such as say "Team Gimp vs Standard Adventuring Day" it's like an allergic reaction.
Objectivity: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."
In other words, not something you've displayed in any of your posts yet. so by your own definition you are...a basketweaver.
Quote from: TristramEvans;591067Objectivity: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."
In other words, not something you've displayed in any of your posts yet. so by your own definition you are...a basketweaver.
This.
Pure win, btw.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591027And if a person were named Person, you could not handle that person refers to the general sense and Person refers to the proper name of someone whose parents hated them. That right? I figured you'd be all in favor of sperglord pedantic bullshit.
Also, bad liar, stop lying.
So, much like your inability to perform basic math functions, you have a utter lack of understanding about the English language too, and you are going to double down on that one. Awesome. You do realize that wildly contrived examples do pretty much nothing for your argument, right?
Here's how English actually works: A certain percentage of the population are moronic raging gimpy cockmonsters. One of those people decided to formally take that name and use it as an alias. Therefore, MoronicRaging GimpyCockmonster is a
specific instance of a moronic raging gimpy cockmonster. We call the former example a 'proper noun'. Generally, using small letters means you are referring to the group, while caps means you are referring to the specific instance, but not always. Sometimes for emphasis, the caps version can be used. I will frequently capitalize monster names and classes to set them off from the general usage. Regardless, 'cleric' and 'Cleric' are the same thing, unless there is a Cleric named 'Cleric'; but that is just an utterly stupid and contrived example. Even so, Cleric the cleric is still a member of the group 'clerics', and 'cleric' has a specific definition. Words have meanings.
However, what you can't do is claim that using the caps version refers to the entire group
or a specific instance, while using the small version refers to whatever you want it to refer to. Therefore, claiming that a 'Cleric' can cast spells and turn undead but a 'cleric' does 200 points of damage per round and has an AC of 75 doesn't work, because the latter and the former are the same thing and it is precisely defined by the rules as to what that is.
If you are going to engage in that kind of 'pedantic bullshit', you should probably just go ahead and explicitly admit you are a basketweaving sperglord yourself. Hence, you utterly fail at maths and now English. Is there anything where you don't completely lose on a constant basis?
"A basket weaver is someone that goes on irrelevant tangents with little to no warning and who latches onto any idea that seems appealing without stopping to consider it or what it means at all."
Examples: Almost all the RPGSite population, much of the Den population, many others.
You know, because you needed some help getting back on subject.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591198"A basket weaver is someone that goes on irrelevant tangents with little to no warning and who latches onto any idea that seems appealing without stopping to consider it or what it means at all."
Examples: Almost all the RPGSite population, much of the Den population, many others.
You know, because you needed some help getting back on subject.
So "basketweaver" has ceased to have the original definitions you offered and now is just anyone who disagrees with you. Gotcha.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591198"A basket weaver is someone that goes on irrelevant tangents with little to no warning and who latches onto any idea that seems appealing without stopping to consider it or what it means at all."
Examples: Almost all the RPGSite population, much of the Den population, many others.
You know, because you needed some help getting back on subject.
The ultimate expression of meta-irony.
Quote from: TristramEvans;591209So "basketweaver" has ceased to have the original definitions you offered and now is just anyone who disagrees with you. Gotcha.
No, basket weavers are many things. Dodging the point and objectivity have always numbered among them. This is just a different variation of their standard behavior.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591215No, basket weavers are many things.
...rendering any definitions meaningless. I get it, it just undermines any argument you might have had. "Basketweaver" is just your version of Pundit's "Swine" or that crazy Republican blogger's "Chuds".
Grown ups generally just call people we don't like assholes and then get on with our lives. Obsession isn't healthy.
BTW, still waiting for the "traps" in the aforementioned game systems...
Quote from: Mr. GC;591215No, basket weavers are many things. Dodging the point and objectivity have always numbered among them. This is just a different variation of their standard behavior.
What does 'objectivity' have to do with this? It means considering facts dispassionately, which is usually seen as a good trait. Are you saying 'basketweavers' are strong minded clear thinkers now? Or, because you didn't capitalize 'objectivity', it can mean anything you want it to, right?
Quote from: StormBringer;591219What does 'objectivity' have to do with this? It means considering facts dispassionately, which is usually seen as a good trait. Are you saying 'basketweavers' are strong minded clear thinkers now? Or, because you didn't capitalize 'objectivity', it can mean anything you want it to, right?
Yes, and that's precisely why dodging it is not regarded as a good trait.
As in "dodging the point and objectivity".
I know, reading is hard.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591230Yes, and that's precisely why dodging it is not regarded as a good trait.
As in "dodging the point and objectivity".
I know, reading is hard.
It appears writing is even harder.
"Dodging both the point and objectivity"
Because what your sentence actually says is:
'Dodging the point' and 'objectivity' have always numbered among them.
Conjunction Junction (http://www.schoolhouserock.tv/Conjunction.html) should have taught you that already.
Because what this thread really needed was more sperglord bullshit.
I think you got that rainman shit right but chose the wrong targets.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591233Because what this thread really needed was more sperglord bullshit. I think you got that rainman shit right but chose the wrong targets.
Oh, good, now you've just descended into pathetic NT prejudice.
Quote from: TristramEvans;591234Oh, good, now you've just descended into pathetic NT prejudice.
A wellspring of entertainment. :)
'Objectivity' is the standard defence for people who haven't ventured out in the world very much. While that can mean 'not leaving mom's basement', it also applies to people who don't engage with others in good faith. Typically, they see conversation or interaction as a kind of asynchronous data exchange; I will wait until the other person is done transmitting, then I will begin transmitting. At no point should the data streams be 'corrupted' by intermixing or re-consideration, however. The data is pure and inviolable, and any attempt to question that is an error on the other person's part.
Quote from: StormBringer;591240'Objectivity' is the standard defence for people who haven't ventured out in the world very much. While that can mean 'not leaving mom's basement', it also applies to people who don't engage with others in good faith. Typically, they see conversation or interaction as a kind of asynchronous data exchange; I will wait until the other person is done transmitting, then I will begin transmitting. At no point should the data streams be 'corrupted' by intermixing or re-consideration, however. The data is pure and inviolable, and any attempt to question that is an error on the other person's part.
lol, sounds like several ex-girlfriends.
Quote from: StormBringer;591240A wellspring of entertainment. :)
'Objectivity' is the standard defence for people who haven't ventured out in the world very much. While that can mean 'not leaving mom's basement', it also applies to people who don't engage with others in good faith. Typically, they see conversation or interaction as a kind of asynchronous data exchange; I will wait until the other person is done transmitting, then I will begin transmitting. At no point should the data streams be 'corrupted' by intermixing or re-consideration, however. The data is pure and inviolable, and any attempt to question that is an error on the other person's part.
"Objectivity is for socially maladaptive losers!"
No sorry, that's just more basket weaver bullshit. Can you at least start fucking up in a more interesting or original manner?
Here, let me even give you some ideas...
"Rogues are a good class, honest!"
"Monks are a good class, honest!"
"Fighters are a good class, honest!" (yes, as much as this is overdone, it's STILL less tiresome and nonsensical than what you are doing now)
"AC 25 at level 10 is a good number."
"30 damage a round at level 20 is a good number."
"Fireball is a good spell in 3.5, honest!"
Alternately, you could simply attempt to discuss facts, numbers, or anything concrete, at which point you will inevitably fuck it up.
Even better yet you could actually contribute to the thread but I believe in holding realistic standards, and it is not realistic to expect you to amount to anything other than a source of mild amusement.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591398Alternately, you could simply attempt to discuss facts, numbers, or anything concrete, at which point you will inevitably fuck it up.
You haven't yet, provided anything concrete about any other game than 3.5, and the little you have provided shows 3.5 as a shit piece of design. You have to try better.
Quote from: Imperator;591445You haven't yet, provided anything concrete about any other game than 3.5, and the little you have provided shows 3.5 as a shit piece of design. You have to try better.
Yes, tabletop games are poorly designed and 3.5, despite its many flaws is actually the best one out there. Not sure if that says something about it, those other games, or both.
As is though, if you wanted actual talent from designers or players with any degree of regularity you'd look elsewhere, as nowhere else will you find such animosity towards competence. Not a single other place.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591446Yes, tabletop games are poorly designed and 3.5, despite its many flaws is actually the best one out there. Not sure if that says something about it, those other games, or both.
You're not qualified to make that judgement, having no knowledge of other games.
Case in point: still waiting for the "traps" in any other game system besides D&D post-2nd Edition..
QuoteAs is though, if you wanted actual talent from designers or players with any degree of regularity you'd look elsewhere, as nowhere else will you find such animosity towards competence. Not a single other place.
So maybe you should find a new hobby?
Quote from: TristramEvans;591460You're not qualified to make that judgement, having no knowledge of other games.
Case in point: still waiting for the "traps" in any other game system besides D&D post-2nd Edition..
So maybe you should find a new hobby?
Mostly because it'd be easier and quicker to point out the things that are not traps. Except that I don't find discussing games no one plays to be especially interesting.
And as soon as one has the depth of D&D, and a non full retard community that's exactly where I and my fellows will be going. As is, D&D is an exercise in either avoiding idiots or dealing with them constantly and other games are painfully simple by comparison.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591473Mostly because it'd be easier and quicker to point out the things that are not traps. Except that I don't find discussing games no one plays to be especially interesting.
What was that earlier you said about dodging being a typical Basketweaver tactic?
Quote from: TristramEvans;591477What was that earlier you said about dodging being a typical Basketweaver tactic?
Shall I take this to mean you're willing to run a party now? No? You'd rather spam irrelevant posts over multiple threads?
Right then. So we've established you have no grounds to question me. Moving on then.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591479Shall I take this to mean you're willing to run a party now? No? You'd rather spam irrelevant posts over multiple threads?
More dodging mr. basketweaver.. I never said I'd run a party with you. I asked you quite clearly to back up a claim you made. You named three game systems, saying they contained "traps", but have not given a single example. You've
waffled and
wormed and
weasled since, but you've failed to back up your claim. Again, by your own definition this makes you a basketweaver. So, shall we just accept you're full of shit, or can you man up and put your money where your mouth is?
Were you not just instructed you have no room to speak to me over such matters?
Yes, you were.
I've given you the means by which you can actually make a point against me. Step it up or step on out.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591486Were you not just instructed you have no room to speak to me over such matters?
Your attempts to waffle and dodge the issue don't give you any authority. All I see is you still squirming and ducking it rather than admit you're full of it.
QuoteI've given you the means by which you can actually make a point against me.
I already made my point against you; balls in your court. Quit dribbling like a fool and man up, mr. basketweaver.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591398... mild amusement.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. You want me to put up a template to make it easier for you?
Here, let's try this:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
Premise x:
Conclusion: Basket weaver is defined.
You fill in the premises and we'll see where things go from there. Otherwise, you are just blustering about how cool you are after it has been conclusively proven on several message boards that you don't know anything about RPGs in general, and your knowledge of 3.5 is almost the exact opposite of 'correct'.
Also, you don't get to demand everyone else prove their claims when you haven't even provided a single premise for any of your own. Especially when that demand is 'prove me wrong'. A bit louder for the people in the back:
Appeal to Ignorance...and it doesn't work. Your overall argument seems to be with the structure of 'discussion', which no one here can help you with. Keep slamming your head into that wall of reality, though, it's bound to sink in at some point.
Right, so irrelevant bullshit aside I just found an awesome video that shows basket weaver vs good player in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b91BWzLigs&feature=relmfu
He takes a while to make his points but makes plenty of amazing ones, and if you substitute any instance of "Dark Souls" for "D&D" it will still almost always hold true with no translation required (and if not, it's because of specific concepts that exist in one game but not the other and the general idea is still sound).
Quote from: Mr. GC;591507Right, so irrelevant bullshit aside
Still dodging huh? Well, I said I wouldn't be holding my breath. You obviously know nothing about any RPG system besides 3.5, and at this point I think it's clear that you have never and do not know how to roleplay. For all your talk of basketweavers, when it came down to it you exhibited exactly the behaviours you ascribed to them (constantly dodging, a lack of objectivity), which isn't that surprising. I find most of the time when someone really rails against any group (or in this case imaginary percieved group), it';s mostly them projecting the things they don't like about themselves but don't want to face.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591446Yes, tabletop games are poorly designed and 3.5, despite its many flaws is actually the best one out there. Not sure if that says something about it, those other games, or both.
Please, show actual examples of that poor design.
Quote from: TristramEvans;591509Still dodging huh? Well, I said I wouldn't be holding my breath. You obviously know nothing about any RPG system besides 3.5, and at this point I think it's clear that you have never and do not know how to roleplay. For all your talk of basketweavers, when it came down to it you exhibited exactly the behaviours you ascribed to them (constantly dodging, a lack of objectivity), which isn't that surprising. I find most of the time when someone really rails against any group (or in this case imaginary percieved group), it';s mostly them projecting the things they don't like about themselves but don't want to face.
:hatsoff:Absolutely agree on all points, especially that last one.
Stupid question for a stupid thread.
What is anyone still interacting with that clown trying to achieve? And do they think it is going to happen?
Who is the greater troll? The troll or the troll who trolls him?
There is no honor in trolling :p
*checks to see if the thread is useful yet*
*sees it still isn't*
Quote from: vytzka;591567Stupid question for a stupid thread.
What is anyone still interacting with that clown trying to achieve? And do they think it is going to happen?
It's more PR at this point. If there were no responses, to a passerby it could look like there is tacit agreement, or at least no dis-agreement. So it's important to show this isn't the place to throw out informal fallacies and unenlightened tripe. There is a minimum requirement for any discussion to be taken seriously, and if we abandon that, Pundit may as well change the name to theRPG.NETsite.
Quote from: StormBringer;591597It's more PR at this point. If there were no responses, to a passerby it could look like there is tacit agreement, or at least no dis-agreement. So it's important to show this isn't the place to throw out informal fallacies and unenlightened tripe. There is a minimum requirement for any discussion to be taken seriously, and if we abandon that, Pundit may as well change the name to theRPG.NETsite.
There have been whole pages in this thread with nothing except for posts by GC and posts quoting GC. I'd worry more about the image *that* brings us (as a forum eager to waste time on trolls) than I would about the converse.
I hate meta-posting myself, but the original topic is long gone.
Just to show it can be done with ease:
Specialization in D6 is a trap option. The investment seems like a good idea at first, but if you EVER plan to reinvest in the base skill, the points are lost. So if you can imagine ever using the skill in more than one way, don't do it.
But I still wouldn't ever use a pejorative to describe a person who chose it.
Also I would like to point out that the Rogue is a good class when desired result is to take on the role of an urban thief. Personally I find the 'Urban Ranger' to strain logic too much for versimilitude.
Quote from: beejazz;591604There have been whole pages in this thread with nothing except for posts by GC and posts quoting GC. I'd worry more about the image *that* brings us (as a forum eager to waste time on trolls) than I would about the converse.
I hate meta-posting myself, but the original topic is long gone.
Also a reasonable speculation. I think my work is mostly done, however, and taking the spirit of Dan's admonition in the other thread, I will focus my efforts on drumming up business for my public domain/open source project instead.
Wanna join in? :)
Quote from: vytzka;591567Stupid question for a stupid thread.
What is anyone still interacting with that clown trying to achieve? And do they think it is going to happen?
It was an amusement. Everybody likes an easy target now and again. But I agree, it's gone on too long. I IL'ed him this morning and I won't be playing anymore.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591605Just to show it can be done with ease:
Specialization in D6 is a trap option. The investment seems like a good idea at first, but if you EVER plan to reinvest in the base skill, the points are lost. So if you can imagine ever using the skill in more than one way, don't do it.
I'm not entirely sure what that means. If I understand correctly, I have 5D in
firearms, and a specialization in
pistols of 6D. I can spend three character points to get
pistols up to 6D+1, but if I read it correctly ("Specialization improves when the base skill improves."), that same bonus would have been had by putting the +1 into
firearms instead, and my character would also have a +1 for any other gun. Except the very next paragraph sounds like you can only invest in the base skill or the specialization at one time, but it's not otherwise exclusive:
QuoteA character may improve a skill or any of its specializations but not both. In other words, a character may improve as many specializations as he desires at the same time, though he cannot improve them at the same time as he's improving the governing skill. Skills and specializations may only be improved by one pip each in between each adventure.
So, I could spend the character points for
pistols this time, then
firearms the next time, and get the benefit of both on
pistols (but of course, both don't apply to
firearms). I assume you are referring to the opportunity cost of improving the specialization instead of the base skill, then?
(Rules quotes from the OpenD6 Adventure book; Chapter Three: Improving Characters; pg 43) QuoteAlso I would like to point out that the Rogue is a good class when desired result is to take on the role of an urban thief. Personally I find the 'Urban Ranger' to strain logic too much for versimilitude.
Exactly. In 1st edition, a 6th level Ranger is a 'Guide', and 7th level is a 'Pathfinder'. Not the first words one thinks of in regards to an urban environment.
Quote from: StormBringer;591638but if I read it correctly ("Specialization improves when the base skill improves
I don't have my books here at work, but either it doesn't improve or it didn't used to in the prior edition. I'll have to see which it is...
Exalted character creation is a bit odd. If you're building an experienced character, you can pay wildly different xp costs to end up with identical stats. It's also really easy to do so by accident. I would call that a trap option.
Mundane healing in FantasyCraft is a trap. You can sink real resources (i.e. feats) into it, but it is not relevent past ~3rd level (your ability to heal stops keeping up with the damage your group receives).
The monk class in 3.x (and I hear pathfinder too) is a trap. They are simply bad at what they do, and cannot keep up with other characters. (The Warrior NPC class in 3.x is NOT a trap option. It is also an objectively weaker class, but it's clearly labelled as such. )
That's off the top of my head. I'm not making any claims beyond "many RPGs have trap options" though.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591642I don't have my books here at work, but either it doesn't improve or it didn't used to in the prior edition. I'll have to see which it is...
I'm not sure what changes were made from the original WEG book after Eric Gibson got a hold of it. Nothing terribly drastic, as I recall. That could be one of the things that got changed, though. A tiny rule with a pretty big impact on the game. Let me know after you get a chance to look that up.
Is Brain Damage a "trap option"?
Quote from: CRKrueger;591667Is Brain Damage a "trap option"?
Only if it is the result of incoherent gaming.
Quote from: StormBringer;591665I'm not sure what changes were made from the original WEG book after Eric Gibson got a hold of it. Nothing terribly drastic, as I recall. That could be one of the things that got changed, though. A tiny rule with a pretty big impact on the game. Let me know after you get a chance to look that up.
Star Wars 2e, page 13 - 'not'. And 'must be improved separately'.
If they changed it after that, I never noticed. We forgot about that option shortly after reading it...
Quote from: mcbobbo;591684Star Wars 2e, page 13 - 'not'. And 'must be improved separately'.
If they changed it after that, I never noticed. We forgot about that option shortly after reading it...
An argument could be made either way, honestly. I can see improving them separately for game balance; spending points to improve two skills is too inexpensive and easily exploited. For 'realism', I can also understand that improving your
firearms (base skill) would improve
pistols (specialization) as well; if you are better at shooting guns, of course you will also be better at shooting pistols.
Taking the old way, it's definitely an opportunity cost 'trap'. A character has 2D in
firearms, but spends character points like a maniac and gets
pistols up to 6D+2. They can shoot the wings off a fly at 200m with a Glock, but put a 30-06 in their hands, and they have trouble hitting the ground consistently. Conversely, spending all those points on
firearms implies that taking
pistols in the first place was a waste of points.
It's even moreso if the newer method is used. It would be absolutely pointless to spend points in a specialization, as increasing the base skill makes the character better at shooting anything, and better at shooting pistols for the same cost. Very low cost to obtain and improve specializations at generation, then essentially free to increase later on. No question that would be a 'trap', if the players aren't aware of how it works.
Are we on page 13 and still not sure on the definition of basketweaver?
Literally, it is someone that is good at weaving baskets.
The connotation, however, is someone that is good at something that is not useful given the circumstances they find themselves.
Insomuch as weaving a basket is unlikely to help in killing a dragon or exploring a dungeon, it is an example of a skill that is superfluous for the 'typical' adventurer.
Further, underwater-basket-weaving is a well-known reference to extremely specialized but even more useless knowledge - further specializing in a sub-set of a largely useless skill renders the learner even less useful.
For the purposes of D&D or other RPGs, a Basketweaver is a character that lacks essential skills for survival, and particularly characters that are ultra-specialized in mostly useless arenas.
Such definitions necessarily depend on the nature of the campaign. If there is nothing in the game world capable of killing a character, it's impossible to fail to survive based on character choices.
Fundamental to Mr. GC's position is the concept of 'expected challenges'. While this forum is pretty hostile to the concept of 'level-appropriate monsters' (even though they fully agree that in a sand-box people will tend to only seek out challenges that they think they can overcome), it should be clear that if some characters are noticeably worse than others, they'll either be more likely to die in a challenging situation for the 'tough' characters, or if the challenges are not 'tough', the 'tough characters' will easily dominate without relying on the contributions of the weaker characters.
While that may be desireable for some games, that would not be something I'd encourage. In my experience, it tends to make the game unpleasant, usually for the weaker character(s).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;591764While that may be desireable for some games, that would not be something I'd encourage. In my experience, it tends to make the game unpleasant, usually for the weaker character(s).
I think its more that it makes it unpleasant for players who don't care about hacking the system to squeeze out every possible mechanical advantage at the expense of any kind of immersion.
Mr. GC made it clear that "basketweavers" were people who didn't "optimize their characters", meaning there's a VERY limited number of RPGs that it could even apply to (in this case Mr. GC seems to think D&D 3.5 is the special snowflake of the rpg world....yet he dislikes Pathfinder intensely...go figure). In other words, basketweavers are anyone who doesn't minmax or makes choices based on roleplaying or characterization rather than purely metagaming.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;591764it should be clear that if some characters are noticeably worse than others, they'll either be more likely to die in a challenging situation for the 'tough' characters, or if the challenges are not 'tough', the 'tough characters' will easily dominate without relying on the contributions of the weaker characters.
While that may be desireable for some games, that would not be something I'd encourage. In my experience, it tends to make the game unpleasant, usually for the weaker character(s).
However, this is a problem 3e brought to D&D. Earlier editions of D&D allowed you to customize your character based on...
1. How you allocated your ability scores.
2. What Non-Weapon Proficiencies you took (if there even were any)
3. What Kit you took (if there even were any)
4. What spells you chose to learn based on what you found
5. What magic items you picked out of what the party found
Not a whole lot of gimping is even possible. In 3e, all else being equal, two characters of the same class can be hero or zero based on Feat selection alone.
So I don't really see how this is even an issue when most basket-weavers are either playing a game where basket-weaving is not even possible or playing at a table where everyone is basketweaving, which means by your own definition no one is.
Basically an insane 3.5er, GC is parroting echo chamber bullshit, and semi-sane 3.5ers Mguy and Dead are defending the contention based on... not sure exactly...a knucklehead they ran into at a single con that caused their team to lose?
Quote from: CRKrueger;591778However, this is a problem 3e brought to D&D. Earlier editions of D&D allowed you to customize your character based on...
1. How you allocated your ability scores.
2. What Non-Weapon Proficiencies you took (if there even were any)
3. What Kit you took (if there even were any)
4. What spells you chose to learn based on what you found
5. What magic items you picked out of what the party found
Not a whole lot of gimping is even possible. In 3e, all else being equal, two characters of the same class can be hero or zero based on Feat selection alone.
So I don't really see how this is even an issue when most basket-weavers are either playing a game where basket-weaving is not even possible or playing at a table where everyone is basketweaving, which means by your own definition no one is.
Basically an insane 3.5er, GC is parroting echo chamber bullshit, and semi-sane 3.5ers Mguy and Dead are defending the contention based on... not sure exactly...a knucklehead they ran into at a single con that caused their team to lose?
"Most games didn't even allow for optimization."
Really? So all those kits don't exist? Picking a usable weapon, like Longsword or Darts over some random junk (almost anything else), that didn't happen? Yeah, it was more rudimentary and a lot of character optimization came down to bullying the DM as opposed to actions in or around the game, but it certainly was there.
And if you go non D&D, there's always good stuff, and then there's horrible stuff, and the latter category is traps and basket weaver bait because they'll willingly take that shit thinking it somehow makes them a better roleplayer even though if anything it has the opposite effect. These other games have a tendency to boil down to a very deterministic, one dimensional equation. Aka everything is all about ______.
And if everyone is basket weaving, well no one is there to carry the group through encounters, so expect to hear a sound not unlike a monkey fucking a bell.
So instead of just quoting me, you come up with a sentence of different meaning, put quotes around it, and then argue against that?
It's been a while since I've seen an actual textbook definition of a strawman used.
Oh and in case we're going to rehash the "1e had optimization" bullshit, let's compare. 3.5e is the game remember that brings us wondrous shit like...
Quote from: Flaming Homer, the Bowling Ball of DoomSpoiler
Goliath
Barbarian 1/Fighter 6/Psychic Warrior 2/Pyrokineticist 1/Warmind 5/Full BAB class X
or
Half-Giant
Barbarian 1/Fighter 6/Pyrokineticist 1/Warmind 5/Full BAB class X
If your DM cares about experience penalties for multi-classing, you'll want to use Goliath Barbarian 6/Fighter 6/Pyrokineticist 1/Warmind 5/full BAB class. Or if you're willing to give up all day Pounce, the quickest method to get the combo working is Half Giant Fighter 6/Pyrokineticist 1/Warmind 5/Full BAB class X.
Feats: Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Knockback, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Combat Reflexes, Cleave, Hold the Line, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Dodge, Karmic Strike.
Other Feats for Consideration: Improved Unarmed Strike, Battle Jump, Mage Slayer, Extra Rage.
Books: SRD, Complete Warrior, Races of Stone (Knockback), Unapproachable East (Battle Jump), Dungeonscape (Dungeon Crasher ability), Complete Champion (Barbarian Pounce variant).
Before combat, use the Expansion power on yourself to increase your reach. Also, you should also note that all whips, including fire lashes, don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack. So you'll need Improved Unarmed Strike, armor spikes, or a natural weapon to make AoO. My preference is Claws of the Beast. Note that the FAQ specifically clarifies that you can switch between a two handed weapon and a natural weapon for in the same round. If your DM doesn't agree with the FAQ, you can use Bite of the Wolf or dip into a one level of Monk instead.
There are also a variety of spells, feats, items, and special abilities that improve your natural reach, and I suggest you use whatever you can.
Charge 10 feet into your enemy. Make a touch attack with your Fire Lash as a two-handed weapon (as it explicitly says you can in the FAQ). Transfer your full BAB to Leap Attack to increase your damage. Make sure that your initial enemy is close to you when you attack him if possible, as you want to keep your enemies in your threatened area each time you knock him back.
If your enemy is standing next to another enemy, each attack also applies to them (Warmind Sweeping Strike). Since Sweeping Strike requires that you move no more then 10 feet during your turn, you can use Hustle+Psionic Dimension Door to move around the battlefield. But your reach is pretty huge, so you shouldn't have to do that very often. You can also just wait for your enemies to come to you, and ready an action to smack them when they come near you.
Each enemy that you hit gets a free Bull Rush attempt (Knockback) on each attack, applying your damage and Leap Attack bonus to the opposed Str check.
This should allow you to push your enemy several spaces backwards. For each space you move your enemy backwards, you may also shift him one hex to the left or the right (Shock Trooper). If this pushes your enemy into the same hex as another enemy, you get a free Trip Attempt on each of them (Shock Trooper, again).
Assuming you still threaten their spaces, each successful Trip gets a free follow up attack (Improved Trip), and each successful melee attack gets a free Bull Rush, which can start another Shock Trooper+Improved Trip combo. And every melee attack can also apply to someone standing next to your enemy using Sweeping Strike.
If you kill someone (you will) you get a Cleave attack, which will also apply to whoever is standing next to them, and start the Attack+Bull Rush+Trip+Attack... combo, again.
And at any time you can Bull Rush an enemy into a wall or other inanimate object, you get to use the Dungeon Crasher ability to deal an extra 8d6 + (3 x Str mod) damage, in addition to your insane Leap Attack damage. This is really easy to pull off, since with Shock Trooper and your uber Bull Rush multiplier, you should be able to fling enemies pretty far. Alternatively, you can have a friend summon a wall in the middle of the battlefield, forcing your enemies to walk around it, and giving you something to Bull Rush them into.
Also note that dead bodies are considered objects, and not allies or enemies. So once you kill something, you should be able to fling enemies into their dead comrades (though your DM will probably rule that they need to be Large size or bigger in order for this to work).
In addition, a whip provokes an AoO from your enemy whenever you use it while adjacent to it. This is a great opportunity for you, because thanks to Karmic Strike it essentially gives you another chance to start up your chain of attacks if by some odd chance you miss on your first touch attack. Though obviously if you're more defense oriented, you'll want to keep your enemies 10 feet away from you when you hit them with the lash.
Using the Complete Champion Barbarian variant, you get Pounce. So you get a full attack virtually every round.
Or if you'd prefer better Expansion and less Pounce, you can dump your Barbarian levels and invest in more Warmind levels earlier instead, depending on Psionic Lion's Charge or Hustle when you need a full attack.
If someone charges you (they pretty much have to in order reach you) you get a free AoO from Hold the Line, resolved immediately before the charge attack, in addition to the normal AoO you'd get for them moving through your threatened area. Which AGAIN, can trigger your combo.
Be sure to buy a backup reach weapon that doesn't deal fire damage. Your DM is most definitely going to throw fire immune enemies at you. See Invisibility or something similar will also help a lot, as will flight.
Also, I'm well aware that this requires an obscene number of feats for the full combo to work. If you think its too many, just drop feats from the end of the list. All you really need is Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, Knockback, Shock Trooper, and Dungeoncrasher. Everything else is just gravy.
and this...
Quote from: Mighty Morphing Hulking HurlerSpoiler
Mighty Morphing Hulking Hurler
Half-Ogre
Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hulking Hurler 2 / Primeval 6 / Frenzied Berserker 1 / Warshaper 2
STATS: Str 24, Dex 10, Con 15, Int 9, Wis 14, Cha 11
1. Psychic Warrior 1
Power Points: 1
Power Attack (Lvl 1 feat), Weapon Focus (Thrown Weapon) (PsyWar Bonus)
2. Psychic Warrior 2
Power Points: 3
Point Blank Shot (PsyWar Bonus)
3. Psychic Warrior 2 / Fighter 1
Power Attack (Ftr Bonus), Self-Sufficiency (Lvl 3 feat)
4. Psychic Warrior 2 / Fighter 2
Cleave (Ftr Bonus), +1 Strength (25)
5. Psychic Warrior 3 / Fighter 2
Power Points 6
6. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2
Power Points 9
Endurance (Lvl 6 feat)
7. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 (UA Variant)
Toughness (UA Variant Feat), Rage (Str +4)
8. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 1
+1 Strength (26), Really Throw Anything
9. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2
Intimidating Rage (Lvl 9 feat), Overburdened Heave
10. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2 / Primeval 1
Dire Ape form (Str +12)
11. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2 / Primeval 2
Regression 1 (Str 27) (Wis 15)
12. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2 / Primeval 3
Destructive Rage (Lvl 12 feat), Feral Power 2 (Ape +14), +1 Strength (Str 28)
13. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2 / Primeval 4
14. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2 / Primeval 5
Regression 2 (Str 29) (Wis 16)
Power Points: 11
15. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2 / Primeval 6
Brutal Throw (Lvl 15 feat), Feral Power 4 (Ape +16)
16. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2 / Primeval 6 / Frenzy 1
+1 Strength (Str 30)
17. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2 / Primeval 6 / Frenzy 1 / Warshaper 1
18. Psychic Warrior 4 / Fighter 2 / Barbarian 1 / Hurler 2 / Primeval 6 / Frenzy 1 / Warshaper 2
Natural Heavyweight (Lvl 18 feat), Morphic Body (Str 34)
This is not AS ridiculous as some of the ones that appear on the Hulking Hurler thread, but it is one that is actually playable without too many strange rules interpretations. If your DM doesn't think Apes can throw rocks, laugh at him, give him some Bio books and an internet connection, and wait until he admits he is wrong.
11 Power Points allows you to use the mighty Expansion to get your size to Gargantuan proportions. It also lets you use Animal Affinity to boost your Strength by an additional 4.
Strength
Lvl 18 Base: 28
Morphic Body: 32
Dire Ape Form: 44
Animal Affinity (Power): 48
Feral Power 2: 52
Regression 2: 54
Expansion (Doubled Power): 58
Rage: 62
Frenzy: 68
Let's calculate the medium load for 68 Strength
401-800 lbs (28 strength)
800 lbs x (4 x 4 x 4 x 4) (Times 4 for every 10 points Str is above 28 str)
=204,800 lbs as a Medium Load for a Medium Creature with 68 Str.
Base size: Large
Dire Ape form: Large
Expansion (Doubled): Huge --> Gargantuan
Now for the clever part: Examples abound in D&D where Claws are used as both arms and legs. As such, we will use Warshaper to shape our monster claws to act as legs. This makes him a Quadruped.
204,800 x 12 (Gargantuan Quadruped) = 2,457,000 lbs for medium load
Natural Heavyweight doubles the value
2,457,000 x 2 = 4,915,200 lbs for medium load
And using Complete Warrior, we can calculate the damage
(4,915,200 - 400)/200 = 24,574d6 + 5d6 damage
AVERAGE = 73,795 damage for one rock.
Our Hurler will get 5 Rocks to throw each round (4 for BAB, 1 for Frenzy). His attacks will be at:
BAB +18
Str +29
+47/+47/+42/+37/+32
Averaging each round for damage:
AVERAGE DAMAGE PER ROUND = 368,975
and this...
Quote from: Gatling Chain Gun TripperSpoiler
The following build is for a Fighter-20, who specializes in "gatling gun attack" tactics. Meaning, she's maxed-out her total attacks per round (7), in addition to gaining feats that grant her multiple attacks when engaged in AoO tactics. Key feats to accomodate this style of warfare are: Combat Reflexes, Karmic Strike, Side Step, & Double Hit/TWF. Fighter-20 was used in lieu of a multi-classed build in order to cram as many of the neccessary feats as possible into the early & mid levels. This character concept would like more than 18 feat slots in 20 levels, but with WotC D&D material, it ain't possible. The important stats for this build are DEX & STR, with an INT of 13 as well. CON, surprisingly, is not as important as it looks. Especially once you get the feat Side Step which prevents many full-attack options being used by your foes. DEX is high for Combat Reflexes, Finesse, & Double Hit/TWF. It just had more synergy than going the STR-first route.
The build starts off with an emphasis on tripping, one of the more potent melee combatant tactics in 3.5. The ascent in levels is intended on accumulating multiple/additional attacks, to be used either as damage attacks or in conjunction with my foundation of trip-feats. The weapon that best suits this strategy is the Chain or Blunt Chain Link (found in OA & in Savage Species). The Chain is a mirror image of the Spiked Chain except that it does 1d6 damage, can be fought with either THF w/10' reach *or* TWF 1d6/1d6. Ergo, I had to spend an EWP feat to pick up use of the Chain. Please note, Weapon Focus & Weapon Specialization feats are not desirable in this build. Once you get polymorphed and/or buffed, those attack & damage bonuses will be less emphatic anyway. This build needs feats that grant extra attacks and special attacks, something magic items & spells can rarely give you.
The addition of the TWF feat chain gives flexibility to the build, although you now fight without 10' reach. TWF has amazing synergy with the Double Hit feat and in situations where you can Karmic Strike, then Side Step 5' to remove yourself from a full-attack option from one of your foes. That Double-Hit Karmic Strike set of AoO's can then be used as 1 or 2 trip-attempts if you so desire. Imagine if that first Double Hit AoO succeeds at tripping - you then get another attack on that target in addition to the 2nd attack of your Double Hit AoO. The way combinations work, you almost *want* your opponent to hit you. And with Fighter HD, you're pretty well protected. At level 12 & higher, this combination of feats, if played right, can completely prevent any full-attack options by your opponents!
Combat Expertise at +4 AC/-4 TH also combines well with Deft Opportunist. If you have Enlarge Person cast on you, your 20' Reach becomes a massive kill/trip zone with Deft Opportunist.
Now, normally, TWF combat is sub-optimal for a non-Rogue. For this Fighter, TWF works great, because in lieu of Sneak Attack dice, you have Tripping & Double Hit opportunities. You can see this build is not about Barbarian-like damage dealing, it's all about battlefield control and defense. The defensive aspect kicks in once you get the Side Step feat at level 12. Level 12 means you should rarely ever have to deal with full-attacks from most opponents any more. And note, if you really want to make this build sing, attach the following magical properties to your primary Chain head:
1. Knockback (+3 Bonus)[MoF]
2. Sweeping (+1 Bonus)[MoF]
3. Screaming (+1 Bonus)[MoF]
Here's the build:
Hu= Jotenbrud
01= EWP: Chain (Combat Expertise)
02= (Imp. Trip)
03= Combat Reflexes
04= (Weapon Finesse)
05=
06= TWF (Imp. TWF)
07=
08= (Dodge)
09= Karmic Strike
10= (Mobility)
11=
12= Side Step (Double Hit)
13=
14= (Greater TWF)
15= Deft Opportunist
16= (Spring Attack)
17=
18= Knock-Down (Power Attack)
19=
20= (Hold The Line)
Feat Notes:
•Jotenbrud is included for its +4 to Trip attempts. The feat becomes optional if you feel you can get consistent Enlarge Person spells from your party spellcasters. Even so, it's good to have an intrinsic ability like this in Dispel Magic-heavy environments.
•Power Attack comes into the picture rather late. This is due to it being a damage-oriented feat, and not a primary focus. Besides, it works better at higher levels when your super-highly-buffed STR gives you better Power Attacking options.
•Whirlwind Attack is not a good feat for this build. Tactically savvy DM's never give you an opportunity to use it anyway.
•Imp. Initiative & Imp. Disarm never made it into the build, unfortunately. Imp. Initiative can be had via a magic item (can't recall the name at the moment).
Now, an optional variant to this build removes 4 levels of Fighter for 1 level of Knight of the Middle Circle (Combat Sense +2, Blindfight) & 3 levels of Exotic Weapon Master (Flurry, Trip Attack, & Twin Ex. Weapon Fighting). But this entails taking away 2 feats. Admittedly, this variant is stronger than Fighter-20, but I posted Fighter-20 up first because, well, I wanted to make a Fighter-20 build that actually looks unique.
and this...
Quote from: Dread Lord of the DeadSpoiler
DREAD LORD OF THE DEAD
Let the reaping begin!
Required Books: Five Nations, Player’s Guide to Faerun, Complete Warrior, Heroes of Horror, Libris Mortis, Complete Champion, Complete Divine, Complete Arcane, Player’s Handbook 2, Spell Compendium, Fiend Folio.
Note that the flaws and traits presented below include a few taken from Dragon Magazine; the trait is amazing, but the flaw can be swapped around.
Unearthed Arcana used: Gestalt, Cloistered Cleric, Prestige Paladin, Paladin variants, Traits, Flaws (all required). It also assumes – reasonably, but not explicitly written – that the paladin variants can be applied to the prestige paladin. Since the build is intended for an NPC, this isn’t too far of a bending. (This is also why all the other variants are used: to use them as a player, your entire team has to have access to them. To challenge a team of players, though, a villain can use them without such restrictions. A gestalt villain can oppose normal heroes, for instance.)
Background: Several months ago, I answered a request from a newish player to help with a specific build for a game that involved prestige//prestige gestalt. The result had two aspects along the two “sides” of the build (yes, I know, gestalt doesn’t have “sides”; it’s shorthand), one being based around fear, and the other being based around undead leadership and synergy. I liked the result so much that I decided to tune it to be regular-gestalt compatible, focusing on the undead leadership side, and the result was this build. It also happened to turn out impossibly iconic for villainous leaders of undead armies – and let’s face it, most DMs usually have one or two of those lurking in the far corners of the world, with a reputation but no detailed story or statistics. This is plug-and-play ready for that archetype.
At the low levels it operates like a fear engine, a harbinger of terror and a reaper of death in melee. At the higher levels, when the PCs have more ability to resist or become immune to fear, it’s a downright wall of minions between you and the target, along with an impressive array of death magic – a one-man zombie apocalypse.
Since this build is intended for CHALLENGING NPC VILLAINS, it uses a lot of variants (including 32-point buy, flaws, gestalt, and two setting books) to accomplish its goal. However, the bump in power these imply tends to put this build roughly on par with an even-leveled team, or perhaps a team only one level lower depending on how many of his minions are present. Have fun letting this one loose against your players and watch them tremble in fear.
There’s even a rough narrative arc suggested by the levels, and since he’s your NPC, this story could very well be the inspiration for taking those levels. I’ve left notes in the various bubbles, but the basic idea is that you’re a priest of (insert good good) who found dark, forbidden lore, becoming corrupted as you channel necromantic energies and dabbling in other dark arcane powers. As you seed terror among the populace, dark powers accept you as their champion, and you go forth to embody death itself. At the high levels, you retire, study the arcane and the divine, age to the point of decrepification, and then become a lich.
The Basics
Race: Human. As usual with human builds, other bonus-feat races work but aren’t necessarily the best choice.
Ability Scores: 12/10/8/12/14/18 to start – this uses 32 point buy because it’s intended to be a powerful villain for the PCs to overcome; lower point-buy drops the physical scores even more (10 Strength, 8 Dexterity for 28 PB) and really only changes how it plays in the early levels. Charisma is boosted at every opportunity; the build also assumes a +2 Wisdom tome and a +5 Charisma tome, so grab those when they’re available (typically post-14). Finally, both for story and for optimization reasons, the character starts out in his prime but ages to old age at the late levels (with a commensurate change in class to reflect a pseudo-“retirement”, so it isn’t quite as insane as it sounds).
Alignment: Lawful Evil. THE classic evil overlord alignment, and it’s the only one that works with the build exactly as written. Appropriate deities include Wee Jas, the Keeper, and the Blood of Vol, or even just unspecified “dark powers” (used in the writeup below).
Traits: Unnatural Aura, Slow. Unnatural Aura (Dragon 356) is a perfect thematic fit, as it boosts the DCs on your fear effects by an incredible +2 and makes animals a little uncomfortable around you. Slow works because most of the time you’ll be mounted and you’ll need the HP boost; thematically it’s a reflection on your poor physical shape (which doesn’t necessarily transfer over to your hit points – which reflect things other than toughness for you). These two seem to be at cross-purposes with each other, but there’s ways around that. (If you don't want Dragon material, it's optional; this trait is just too good to NOT mention here and since we're using traits for Slow anyway...)
Flaws: Any two, the choice is widely up to you; pick ones that set him apart and encourage specific strategies in the PCs without actually crippling him. Basically, anything that doesn’t mess with your ability scores is fine. Vulnerable fits the “hide behind walls of minions” thing later on but is dangerous if you’re using him at low levels. Murky-Eyed is another good choice which reflects his early-game descriptions (nearsighted from all that reading).
Skill Notes: Keep Concentration and Spellcraft high (Spellcraft helps a lot more when the villain can identify the PC’s spells, and it helps set the stage if you want to advance this guy to Epic, which you might if the PCs are sufficiently high level). Don’t be afraid to pull a few points out of them to keep up with the other skills, though – you need 6 ranks in Ride, 6 ranks in Craft: Armor, 4 points in Intimidate (at least), and a decent array of Knowledge skills, especially Religion, to meet all your requirements. Knowledges matter most if you get them early on. If you can pull 6 ranks into Craft: Weaponsmithing, you get an extra bonus, but this may not be feasible for you. If you want skill tricks, the only one worth considering here is really Collector of Stories, assuming it even works with Knowledge Devotion.
Basic Equipment: Early on, you probably want to stick to a bow and a good simple weapon like a spear, along with the best light armor you can find. (You get a charnel touch ability to cover the closer range than the spear.) Once the hexblade levels kick in, you should wield something menacing – a scythe is thematically appropriate and will prove useful as a secondary weapon in the middle levels, i.e. 7th onwards until you have better things to do with your hands. Other than that, your basic equipment needs are minor (spell component pouch, unholy symbol, etc). However, your armor is replaced when you enter Bone Knight, so pick a good set of MEDIUM armor as your base at any time after level 6.
Magical Gear Goals: Boost Charisma and Wisdom at every opportunity, up to and including tomes. Early on look for durability gear, particularly +Con items – permanent investments in your worldly health are trivial, but a good amulet of health is a wise investment. Along the way, picking up Nightsticks is a passable use for money – you get plenty of turn attempts, but more is always better. (Note that this build uses TWO separate types of turn attempts; if you aren’t able to get this “doubling up” – see level 1 – you’d best hunt for Nightsticks instead.)
Specific gear for undead mastery is a good call as your levels go up – I’ve included a few basic goals (the Phylactery of Undead Turning and the Rod of Undead Mastery) in the levels below at appropriate levels to aid in DMs budgeting to use this guy at any level. There’s a lot of other good undead-master gear out there, but they tend to compete for space in your hands; these are the two standouts. If you need more item suggestions, try caster gear – a metamagic rod of Fell Drain is a fun thing to add to the mix.
The Build.
Build Stub: Dread Necromancer 20 // Cloistered Cleric 1 / Hexblade 4 / Prestige Paladin of Tyranny 3 / Bone Knight 10 / Divine Oracle 2
NOTE: Due to Dread Necro being omnipresent, I don’t list its class level at each level up – its class level is equal to your character level.
NOTE: The Deathbound domain received errata which substantially changed how it worked – in the book it is a passive increase to your undead control cap, but in the errata it boosts how many undead can be affected with a single Animate Dead casting. The latter is used below.
NOTE: You should probably keep the Revised Necromancer Handbook open at most times past level 8 or so.
1 – Dread Necro // Cloistered Cleric –(Charnel Touch, Turn Undead, Rebuke Undead, Deathbound domain, Planning domain, Lore) (Tomb-Tainted Soul, Dreadful Wrath, Fell Animate, Divine Metamagic (Fell Animate), Extend Spell, Knowledge Devotion) * Show
*phew* that’s a lot, but flaws and domains that grant bonus feats will do that for you.
I consider both sets of turning to be separate from each other because they’re keyed off of different class levels, but if that isn’t enough for you, there IS a cheap way to make it legal. Start of as a Lawful NEUTRAL cleric who channels positive energy, and you get two separate class features: Turn Undead and Rebuke Undead, each with their own pool of uses. When you go evil later –and with this build, that’s only a matter of time – you’ll switch over to Rebuke, but Gestalt only cares about when you learn the abilities, not what happens to them afterwards.
Besides, it fits the general lore – in this case, it’s a scribe who basically stumbles across the Necronomicon or similar not-so-nice piece of ancient lore and seeks to understand it – for purely academic reasons, at least at first – before becoming corrupted by the dark powers who have latched on to his soul through the lore. He’s already irrevocably set out on the path towards evil if he isn’t evil already, and his powers reflect that. The Turn Undead in the LN entry above is a vestige of his dying faith in his former god.
At level 1, you’re already capable of raising undead – Divine Metamagic (Fell Animate) applied to an Inflict spell will do the trick if the target’s weak enough to be killed. You can augment the damage it deals by delivering it alongside a Charnel Touch – learn how this ability works, it’s an alarmingly useful boost. (And, with the mandatory Tomb-Tainted Soul feat, you’ve got access to infinite self-healing out of combat, big surprise there.) Interestingly, as it’s a touch spell, it looks like your Knowledge Devotion ability gives you a damage boost – as well as a creepy effect of explaining just what that knowledge represents in a character like this (hint: Autopsies). (Outside of this trick, Knowledge Devotion is a cheap way of getting an extra edge out in melee to compensate for your lowish Strength.) You’ve got 14 turn attempts to spend this way (it costs 4 per pop on Fell Animate), but are limited to a small undead army (4 total HD, two whole zombies) due to your caster level.
The real strength here, though, is that you’re a pretty decent fear engine. Every time you attack, charge, or cast a spell, targets within 20 feet have to make a DC 16 Will save or be shaken, similar to Frightful Presence. For real fun, that spell you cast can be Bane (as a dread necromancer), which inherits a +2 DC from Unnatural Aura and lowers enemy saves even more before Dreadful Wrath kicks in. DC 17 for a 50' burst save-debuffer is amazing, but having it trigger a separate DC 16 20' fear effect (which is also a save-debuffer) is downright crippling.
2 – Dread Necro // Hexblade 1 – (Lich Body 2, Hexblade’s Curse) * Show A quick aside: Mike Mearls gave the hexblade a set of unofficial “errata” of sorts that showcase what the class would look like if it had been built later in 3.5. These include a few big boosts to your Curse ability which make it quite desirable here, along with an improved Fortitude save (helpful). However, the build does not assume this.
And now, your descent into darkness has been answered – the dark Powers from beyond have granted you a boon, and promise more if you bring more darkness and evil into the world.
At this point, the increase in HP and DR increase your melee presence, and the ability to curse your foes is a nice surprise, particularly after you’ve already blasted them into one of the lower fear conditions. The DC is really low and it’s only 1/day, but it’s a free action, so if you’ve managed to scare a vital target, curse them.
3 – Dread Necro // Hexblade 2– (Negative Energy Burst 1, Arcane Resistance) (Mounted Combat) * Show As the Dread Necro handbook states, Negative Energy Burst + Tomb Tainted Soul is basically a vampiric drain attack. Be sure to cast spells or charge in advance for this, which will reduce the opponents’ saving throws first. Gods, I love Dreadful Wrath.
Mounted Combat is a prerequisite. To make use of it here, animate a small horse to use as a steed. (A live one won’t really like you much.) This also compensates for your Slow flaw. If the PCs manage to Turn it on you, it leads to a nice set of poetic justice later on (level 11).
Arcane Resistance, by the way, is one of the three reasons I picked hexblade here. That godly Charisma, which has so far been fueling only your dread necro spells and your spontaneous Fell Animates (which, I should note, only work on cleric spells, not dread necro spells)? Now it boosts all your saves vs spells, which improves your survivability something fierce.
4 – Dread Necro // Hexblade 3 – (Advanced Learning: Kelgore’s Grave Mist, Mental Bastion 2, Mettle) * Show And Mettle is the second of three reasons the hexblade rocks. Add it to Arcane Resistance and you’re only really still “weak” to AoE spells (and even those you still have a +5 save against).
Kelgore’s is a natural fit with the Dread Necro casting you’ve got going. Later on it also makes a wonderful combination with Fell Animate if you cast it in a populated area – puts the heroes in a pickle, that does.
Speaking of spellcasting, you have Spectral Hand now. Like most dread necros, if you get a buff round, this is probably your spell of choice.
5 – Dread Necro // Hexblade 4 – (Fear Aura, Dark Companion) * Show And this is the third of three reasons hexblades rock. It’s also the best for a spellcaster – a mobile -2 to saves aura is pretty badass when you’re already forcing fear saves at DC 18 on every spell cast. If that spell is up close, your tiny-range Dread Necro fear aura also applies; it’s quite easy to send targets straight to Panicked this way if their Will save isn’t up to par.
6 – Dread Necro // Prestige Paladin of Tyranny 1 – (Scabrous Touch 1, Detect/Smite Good, Rebuke Undead ) (Battlecaster) * Show And now, the gods themselves have taken notice and bestowed upon you the mantle of Paladin. Go forth and bring the mortal world under your dominion, Dread Lord, and let them tremble in fear before you!
Yeah, prestige paladin + paladin of tyranny isn’t expressly printed in Unearthed Arcana, but it’s a perfect match and an easy ruleset to apply. You’re getting a solid boost to your cleric casting at this level – including adding paladin-only spells to the list. It’s a good thing we’re working on that, too, as we’ve dawdled long enough on the melee/fear thing – those accursed PCs are starting to get really good Will saves and ways of making themselves immune to fear, so it’s probably for the wisest that we begin praying for more power to wield against them.
Oh, and one last thing: if you’re able to quickly get one of the “one level lighter” enhancements on your armor – Featherweight, for instance – you can replace Battlecaster with Practiced Spellcaster (Cleric). This is actually a much better feat, but Battlecaster is needed to continue to cast Dread Necro spells while wearing medium armor. We’re going to have to start wearing medium armor soon, so some method of circumventing this is required. If all else fails, you can take steps to minimize its arcane spell failure – if you can get it down to 0, you can retrain this feat to Practiced Spellcaster without a blink.
7 – Dread Necro // Prestige Paladin 2 – (Lich Body 4, Familiar: Ghostly Visage, Divine Grace, Deadly Touch, Special Mount) * Show Yes sir – Divine Grace and Arcane Resistance and Mettle. Good luck getting through that, PC spellcasters. Your dark patrons have blessed you with their protection, and have granted you servants to use in your quest for dominion.
Your Special Mount is likely to hate you due to your Unnatural Aura, but it could also have simply had its will broken by your dark patrons before they gift it to you. (This is the only area that’s really badly defined by “Prestige Paladin of Tyranny”; the mount probably rests in the fiendish realms when not summoned.) But you do have it, and it’s not a bad beast. Interestingly, several auras are defined as “within X feet of you”, and if you’re on a Large mount, you take up a Large space, so this actually inflates how many squares you can influence with some of your tricks.
The real winner here is your Ghostly Visage familiar: it actually renders YOU immune to mind-affecting abilities when you “wear” it as a face. Furthermore, it continues to deliver a gaze attack that paralyzes the targets who meet its gaze, and since the familiar’s effective HD are equal to your Dread Necromancer level, the DC continues to progress as you go up in level. It’s a mere 16 now, but that’s a 16 boosted by your Dark Companion, DC 19 Dreadful Wrath, DC 19 Fear Aura, and plentiful other debuff spells. Paralyzed is a MEAN condition, so feel free to bring the pain directly.
8 – Dread Necro // Prestige Paladin 3 – (Advanced Learning, Negative Energy Burst 2, Undead Mastery, Aura of Despair, Divine Health) * Show Now you get the reason I locked on to Paladin of Tyranny in the first place: Aura of Despair gives you another -2 to saves aura, and it’s big enough to influence things with your Fear Aura and touch spells. You can exploit that with your Advanced Learning: this choice and all subsequent ones are open to you.
And now, you also have Animate Dead, which along with Undead Mastery on a full dread necromancer with heavy Charisma is freaking INSANE. Animate Dead + Undead Mastery + Deathbound = animate up to (3+CHA)*CL HD per casting: even though this is higher than the limit of spell-made undead you can control, the spell keeps them under your control (read it carefully). You’d lose control over previously spell-animated undead, but that's what Rebuke is for.
It isn’t impossible to be able to hold nearly about 100 hit dice of undead under your control at this level (with some pretty powerful single-target undead at that), particularly because you have several separate “pools” of HD to use to control them in different ways. You have Rebuke Undead as a dread necromancer, Rebuke Undead as a cleric, your arcane Animate spells, your divine Animate spells (i.e. Divine Meta: Fell Animate at this level; you get Animate Dead itself shortly); all of these reference different properties to figure out how many they can control, and none of them reference “all undead you control” (for an example of that, read the Ghoul Gauntlet spell – and never cast it.)
This is also around the time you can probably obtain and command a Slaymate (-1 metamagic cost). If fear effects aren't being useful, you can consider retraining Dreadful Wrath at this point, but I still like it due to its huge reach. If it goes, Practical Metamagic can drop Fell Animate’s metamagic costs, making it much more useful with the Dread Necromancer side of your magic (which has to spend slots to cast Fell Animate spells), so you might be able to raise some more useful minions without paying for a truckload of onyx.
This is also the level you want +2 stat boosters on Con, Cha, and Wis if you can swing it.
9 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 1 – (Negative Energy Resistance, Bonecraft Armor, Rebuke Undead, Paladin Conversion) (Corpsecrafter) * Show (We assume Bone Knight rebuke only advances the divine rebuke, not the dread necro one as well.)
And now your own research breaks through – you’ve developed a way to become the undead alive, in glorious tribute to your dark patron and the causes of evil. Donning a skeletal breastplate to emulate your ideal form, you master the art of creating more powerful undead than ever before.
The timing on Bone Armor + Negative Energy Resistance is coincidental, but the thematic link certainly is appreciated. Sadly, however, Paladin Conversion is more of a bane to you than a boon – it does nothing for you as a paladin of tyranny except, possibly, give Deadly Touch the ability to heal living creatures as well (funny enough) and cause your special mount to shun you. Your stronger undead can provide a temporary mount for you at this stage without a real fuss. You’ve begun your switch to full spellslinger, and you’re doing it while advancing one of the best defensive cleric PrCs out there, and a perfect thematic match to your other abilities.
10 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 2 – (Light Fortification, Bone March, Skeletal Steed) * Show The abilities here work out nicely. I’ll go from worst to best.
The Skeletal Steed gives you your buddy back. The real reason you do this is because sometimes, it helps having a persistent undead you can Spellstitch or add other bonuses to – who isn’t in danger of being destroyed when you aren’t looking, because he exists on another realm. The bonus to your Special Mount level from using prestige paladin is appreciated as well.
The Bone March ability is interesting – it’s a separate pool of undead HD you can control using means completely separate from rebuking or animating. Absolutely nothing prevents you from Animating some minions and shifting control from yourself to yourself with this ability, tucking them away under Bone March while leaving the valuable Animate HD open for stronger undead. By my quick estimations, this amounts to something like nearly 150 total HD of undead under your control, with a strongest individual undead (from Animate Dead as a necromancer) at 30 HD.
Finally, the real niceness: Desecrate is online, which gives MORE HD-related benefits to animated undead AND doubles the HD strength of Animate Dead (which means one animation spell can affect up to (6+2*CHA)*CL HD, all of which remain under your control). This is VERY beastly.
11 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 3 – (Lich Body 6, Scabrous Touch 2, Master of the White Banner) * Show Turn resistance aura based on your Charisma modifier, which is at least a +6 modifier at this point unless you’ve splurged for a +4 item already. The Turn Resistance applies after you already control them, so it doesn’t make it harder to maintain control as near as I can tell.
12 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 4 – (Advanced Learning, Enervating Touch, Improved Bonecraft Armor) (Persistent Spell)* Show I hate how the Bone Knight doesn’t tell you what these immunities are in the table… but you’re now immune to stunning and nonlethal damage. Not that the PCs had much of a chance getting through your saving throws anyway, but it’s nice to have.
Advanced Learning choice is up to you; possible choices are Aura of Terror or Imperious Glare, depending on whether Dreadful Wrath counts as Frightful Presence or not. These emphasize your fear side a bit more, so you might prefer an undead-mastery spell at this level instead.
Persistent Spell was taken because of Reasons, but I bet you can guess what they are. This level gives you a lot of spellcasting options and minion control, so a feat that you won’t be able to use for a while is fine.
This is the level you can easily afford a Rod of Undead Mastery. This rod, when held, doubles the number of HD of undead you can control. It is not specific as to type – it seems to apply to all five of your control methods at once (cleric rebuke, necro rebuke, cleric animation, necro animation, and Bone March). You can hit nearly 400 HD of undead at this point if you do this.
13 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 5 – (Negative Energy Burst 3, Fill the Ranks) * Show Note that Fill the Ranks can only give you Karrnathi skeletons and zombies, which are getting kind of stale at this level (although they are cheap ways of getting intelligent servants). While Fill the Ranks inherits the Deathbound ability and Desecrate's bonuses, along with Corpsecrafter, it uses Bone March's HD limit, which is apparently separate from normal Animate Dead limits and certainly different from Rebuke limits.
This is also a good level to get your Con and Cha boosters to +4, and buy a Phylactery of Undead Turning. The reason you want this particular item is because unlike the other items that work like it, this one is slotted instead of held –which lets you use something like the Rod of Undead Mastery in one hand and keep the other hand free for spellcasting.
14 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 6 – (Mental Bastion 4, Bonecraft Weapon) * Show If you felt the need to sink 6 ranks into Craft: Weaponsmithing, this is your reward: if you’re still using weapons at all instead of just spells and minions, that weapon can deal an extra die of damage. Wooo… but it also enables another (optional) feature later on, so keep it in mind.
At this level, upgrade your Wisdom booster to +4 if you haven’t already.
15 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 7 – (Lich Body 8, Improved Bonecraft Armor) (Divine Metamagic: Persistent Spell) * Show Improved Bonecraft here is basically the Diehard feat, which combines quite well with your DR 8/Bludgeoning+Magic and Medium Fortification.
The feat choice was a natural one – you probably saw it coming. All those juicy cleric buffs are now Persistable, thanks to over 30 total rebuke attempts from your two separate classes. The best, by far, is Consumptive Field. Let me express it this way.
1: Divine Persist Consumptive Field.
2: Slaughter livestock or villagers. Your CL rises by 50%. (Combine with Desecrate and animation spells.)
3: Divine Persist any other buffs, sharing the spells with your mount.
4: Animate any of the corpses that can fit inside your new increased HD cap.
5: ????
6: Profit!
This is a good level to upgrade your Con an Cha boosters to +6; you can do this and still have enough money left over for the first of your Wisdom tomes. This is needed to keep up with your spellcasting. (5th level cleric spells just came online, and I don’t like having to use +Wis items to hit your max spell level.)
16 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 8 – (Advanced Learning, Scabrous Touch 3, Exoskeleton of Undeath) * Show Exoskeleton of Undeath means immunity to virtually everything undead could want – poison, sleep, paralysis, disease, death effects, fatigue, exhaustion, physical ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, and death by massive damage. You are one tough nut to crack – and you’re still not a true undead yet, though you keep assimilating more and more traits of theirs into yourself. At this stage that includes bonding yourself to your suit of bone armor permanently – your weak fleshy exterior is a nuisance and serves only as a channel for your dark powers.
Unlike other levels, at this point I’m going to suggest a few Advanced Learnings.
First, let’s talk General of Undeath. This adds your caster level to your undead control cap (I’m not sure if it's rebuke or animate; it may be worded loosely enough to ALSO apply to Bone March. However, since it’s temporary, I assume here that it only refers to your rebuke caps.). Combining this with the Rod of Undead Mastery and Persistent Consumptive Field is insane: use the boosted CL to fuel a persistent version of General of Undeath, and you’re basically commanding an army of zombie dragons if you do it right. (You can use that spell to boost your Rebuke capacity, and fill that up with fodder and infantry while using your more precious animate capacity for stronger creatures, and with Bone March holding a few in reserve.)
If this doesn’t appeal to you and you need a single-target slayer, use Greater Bestow Curse. That, plus Spectral Hand, gives you an amazing hoser - Cha-based save at this point has a mod of +9, on top of your continued debuff auras (and paralyzing gaze attack – it’s unlikely anyone’s seen your real face for several levels) and anything failing the save has a 1 in their critical ability score. Bye-bye wizard.
Gear-wise, get your Wisdom booster up to +6 here, and buy the first of your Charisma tomes.
17 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 9 – (Enervating Touch 2, Death Strike) * Show Death Strike is your other reward for 6 ranks in Craft Weaponsmithing, and it’s also optional. The DC is respectable (29 at this point if you’ve gotten your Charisma up to the 24+6 I suggested) and it can be combined with your one and only smite per day (remember that, wayyyyyy back when we were training as a true ‘paladin’?) if you like. You can also forgo it altogether if you’d rather the skill points go elsewhere.
Gear-wise, this level sees your final Wisdom tome, and another Charisma tome.
18 – Dread Necro // Bone Knight 10 – (Negative Energy Burst 4, Improved Bonecraft Armor) (Skill Focus: Knowledge (Religion)) * Show You’re finally completely immune to critical hits, and with that, precision damage as well.
9th level Dread Necro spells are online, with a Charisma modifier of +10 if you’ve been keeping up. It’s not as deadly as 9th level wizard spells of course, but you’ve still got a LOT of slots to burn through.
Why Skill Focus? Prerequisite. And the enlightenment and study of the divine profane patrons that have been supporting you during your long crusade is a suitable source of insight.
(Storywise, this is a good point for the character to “retire” from active adventuring and seek the usual Evil Overlord position as the head of whatever lands he’s conquered by now. You could have him appear at this level Middle-Aged if you want; at next level he’ll be Old Age. If you need him around for the next few years in-game, simply have him hop to a place with faster-than-usual time for the following sections, or sacrifice his earthly youth and vitality as part of a DM-specified dark ritual. We employ aging to get a bigger Wisdom/Charisma boost, naturally; you don’t age after you go Lich.)
Gear-wise, another Charisma tome is appreciated.
19 – Dread Necro // Divine Oracle 1 – (Scry Bonus, Luck domain) (Craft Wondrous Item) * Show Advance to Old-Age here.
Complete Champion lets the Oracle domain swap for Luck Devotion, which combines well with blast spells if you want – but also restricts you from picking it if it doesn’t strongly fit the theme of your divine patron; here, Luck doesn’t jive too well with Knowledge or death. Besides, the luck reroll is very useful.
Over the past several years, you’ve been ruling your nation, or have been lurking in an underground lair trying to learn all you can about the PCs’ world, depending on how successful they’ve been against you. Either way, this explains the Divine Oracle levels (advancing your cleric magic, naturally) and the sudden Craft Wondrous Item, which you may be using for more than its intended purpose during the intervening years.
This is actually a very fragile time for you – the old age penalties, even with your +Con item, drop you to a mere 5 base Constitution, with 122 HP. Be cautious and act through minions, biding your time while you complete your work.
Gear-wise, another Charisma tome is appreciated.
20 – Dread Necro // Divine Oracle 2 – (Advanced Learning: Astral Projection, Lichdom, Divine Prescience, Trap Sense +1) (Retrain Tomb-Tainted Soul for Improved Toughness) * Show use the interpretation that Lichdom actually applies the Lich template rather than just making you undead, since that’s pretty clearly the intention (and precedent, based on things like the Dragon Disciple).
At this level, so much comes online that it’s downright disturbing. You get the third and final Evasion effect (Evasion itself, except usable in any armor), DR 15/Bludgeoning+Magic, the full suite of undead abilities (including immunity to Fortitude save effects that aren’t also object effects),and immunity to cold, electricity, and involuntary polymorph, plus some turn resistance (which is further augmented by your Master of the White Banner ability, adding your now +14 Charisma to your turn resistance.) You also have Astral Projection, which is downright abusive and allows you a second “escape hatch” if the PCs actually kill you in battle. (The “first” is your phylactery.)
If you can find some method, ANY method, of grabbing the Unholy Toughness ability (it’s on several MM3 monsters; currently the only way known to get it through level-ups is to use Walker in the Waste, but the authors of LM hinted once that it was planned to be available to undead PCs otherwise), do it. I don’t care what the cost is, do it. You go from 176 expected HP to a whopping 456 expected HP if you can pull this off.
Gear-wise, your final Charisma tome is added here. Sell the +Con item (it’s worthless to you) and replace it with a +6 Dex item.
Snapshot: This build changes forms quite a bit over its progression – you start out in melee and finish as a decisive caster. I’ll focus on the latter since we’ve got enough meleeists in the Showcase already.
Armed with +6 Wis/Cha boosters, a +2 Wis tome and a +5 Cha tome, plus the Phylactery of Undead Turning and the Rod of Undead Mastery – this isn’t that expensive for you, actually, leaving you with over half your gold left to spend on other gear – and assuming no active spell effects (Consumptive Field, Desecrate, General of Undeath etc) we get the following:
HP 176 (or 456 if you found a way to get Unholy Toughness) with Base Attack +18 (you’re only going to be attacking with rays, at +17, which is pretty decent against touch ACs). Positively stunning saves of +30/+18/+41 (or +44/+32/+55 vs spells), with Mettle and Evasion to negate any partial effect on a successful save (and with THOSE saves? You’re succeeding.) Its lists of resistances and immunities are strictly speaking stacked: Full undead immunities plus separate immunities (i.e. not able to be removed if you roll a 1 on your save against Spark of Life) to Negative Energy, Mind-Affecting, Disease, Stunning, Nonlethal Damage, “diehard”, Poison, Sleep, Paralysis, Death Effects, Fatigue, Exhaustion, Physical Ability Damage, Ability Drain, Energy Drain, Massive Damage, Critical Hits, Cold, Electricity and Involuntary Polymorph. You also have resistances, with evasion on all three saves, and DR 15 / Bludgeoning+Magic. (The resistances list is bigger early on, but by level 20 most of your resistances have grown into full-blown immunities.)
In terms of other special effects, you have the full-power Charnel Touch (1d8+5 damage at will or added to another touch effect, can be used to inflict disease or negative levels at DC 34), a DC 36 Dreadful Wrath, one hexblade curse at DC 26, 4 20d4 Dark Energy Burst drain attacks at DC 34, an 84-point Deadly Touch (evil Lay on Hands) at DC 25, a DC 36 5’ fear aura, a DC 34 Death Strike, a DC 23 paralyzing gaze attack, along with the no-save saving throw hosers in the Dark Companion and Aura of Despair. As a lich, you have a DC 34 paralyzing touch (which can be augmented by your Charnel Touch, it seems; note that this version is permanent paralysis) and a DC 36 lich fear aura (60’ but limited to creatures with under 5 HD.)
Although your only mounted feat is Mounted Combat (a decent one if you’ve pumped Ride at all), you have a pretty respectable special mount – as a 16th level paladin with the Skeletal template applied. (If you allow paladins to forge bonds with other creatures naturally other than warhorses, consider it here too – Cauchemar nightmares are stylish, haven’t you heard? - but we just assume an average warhorse for this snapshot.) Assuming your Corpsecrafter modifications apply to it, you’re looking at an unturnable 12HD mount with 126 HP, AC 23, speed 50, Strength 32, Intelligence 9, a melee attack bonus of +17, saves of +16/+9/+20, and SR 21 along with undead immunities and the full suite of Paladin special abilities, most notably Share Spells with your Persistent cleric spells.
Spellwise, you cast spells as a 20th level Dread Necromancer and as a 14th level cleric (although if you managed to get the ASF down on your armor, your cleric CL could rise to 18 through swapping Battlecaster for Practiced Spellcaster), and you can spontaneously apply Fell Animate and Persistent Spell using Divine Metamagic with 34 Rebuke attempts. With your ability scores, these translate into DCs of 24+spell level for the necromancer and 18+spell level for the cleric (with +2 for Fear effects), with spell slots of --/10/10/9/9/9/9/8/8/7 and 6/7/7/6/6/4/4/3 (not including domain spells – the Deathbound domain actually has a lot of unique options on it when investing in mighty undead minions).
Speaking of your undead minions, let’s go through your methods of control. You rebuke with a +16 check as a 24th level necromancer and an 18th level cleric. You animate as a 20th level necromancer with Undead Mastery and a 14th level cleric; both benefit from the Deathbound domain. You also have Bone March, which operates off of your 10 Bone Knight levels. Put it all together and you get, using the format of Total HD (most powerful single undead), you get necromancer rebuke 24 (12), necromancer magic 360 (60), cleric rebuke 18(9), cleric magic 56 (42), and Bone March 40 (10), for a grand total of 498 total HD under your control at once. Oh, and that’s without the Rod of Undead Mastery, which doesn’t care how you brought them under your control – this raises it up to 996 HD of undead at once, with some of them up to 60 HD if you try right (Naturally, you'll use your Deathbound spells on the highest HD undead you've got.) It’ll get expensive in terms of onyx though. (Hint: If you wind up zombifying a peasant to send a message to the others, don’t release the zombie – giving it basic orders of “Bring me onyx!” might not be a bad call. Your intelligent Karrnathi undead, if you choose to make them instead of just shunting other undead to Bone March, can also Aid with Craft or Profession checks 24/7 to start raking in cash for more onyx – though you probably want to set them up *behind* the factory’s closed doors to avoid scaring the customers.)
Overall Strengths: You mean, besides the fact that it’s a caster//caster gestalt (the lengths you have to go to challenge PCs these days...) with an *amazing* undead army size (and can animate from level 1!)? The Dread Lord of the Dead is abusively resilient (immune to nearly every status condition and has Evasion on all three saves!), and isn't actually undead until level 20. Hilarious Charisma synergy gives you almost single-ability focus (Dread Necro casting, two sets of Rebuke, All Saves, Saves vs Spells, Lay on Hands, and the DC of every aura and special ability you get), but there’s a need for Wisdom as well. Gets 9th level Dread Necro spells and 7th level cleric spells, plus has ways of boosting those CLs, along with Persistent Spell (and two sets of rebuke to fuel it) and multiple effects that hose saving throws, both with and without fear.
As a recurring villain, it’s able to be used at many, many levels without truly getting stale because its “tricks” evolve over time at a natural rate (with a serious boost as soon as the necromancer side gets Animate Dead; thanks to the hexblade level delay (for increased melee presence early on and increased magic synergy later) you don’t start animating as a cleric until later, when melee is getting stale). Early on you act as a fear engine and melee warrior, not terribly sturdy but able to scare low-level minions into submitting without too much trouble (so go and conquer some orc or goblin tribes to serve as minions; you’ll animate the incompetent as a message to the others). Midway through your magic is taking over, as your debuff effects lead to surprisingly effective offense both through sword and spell, though your fragility and the increased might of PCs at these levels forces you to rely more on magic and your special abilities (i.e. your save hosers + your Paralysis gaze + Coup de Grace, backed up by spells). At the high levels you’re all about the magic, bringing many of the Cleric buffs (both to yourself and your undead minions – seriously, read the Deathbound domain someday, it can make your high-HD undead into legendary soldiers) and the full suite of Dread Necromancer spells to the table, supported by your persistent save-debuffing effects and your utterly ridiculous legions of obedient undead.
Overall Weaknesses: You’re squishy in the HP department except in the middle levels. (If you use the level 1 version, pick a bow as your Dread Necro weapon and hang back, using Fell Animated zombies as your melee presence (remember that you can animate mid-battle if you have civilian corpses around, so those zombies are expendable). Later on as hexblade kicks in and you get DR, you can risk melee, but I’d still suggest a reach weapon to play keep-away). You’re also fragile again at level 19 due to aging effects, but by now you probably have a huge, possibly extraplanar fortress full of the undead to keep the PCs at bay. At 20th, you lack any good ways of boosting your HP (and that’s WITH the Improved Toughness and Slow trait worked in there), unless you find a way to fit in Unholy Toughness (you might have to resort to fiat, but we tried to avoid that here). The build is also lacking skill points, particularly if you make the diversion for Craft: Weaponsmithing – you won’t be able to max out Concentration, Spellcraft, Ride, and even a single Knowledge (in a build with Knowledge Devotion) this way. Oh, and most annoyingly, it relies on a LOT of Unearthed Arcana, making it best suited for DMs looking for a challenge for their players rather than for the players that make up most of this audience.
Variants: I tried to capture all the necessary feels for a classic BBEG – from might-makes-right / fear-me-and-obey at the low levels, to the unleash-the-army and I-wield-the-power-of-the-gods at the higher levels. There’s a lot to play with in this build alone, primarily in the Advanced Learning selections. (The ones listed in the headers are more or less “fixed” as the clear winners at those levels, but the others are open.) However, the build structure itself is rather… starved, and interconnected, so it’s kind of hard to do serious remodeling on this without gutting something you’d rather not remove. My one regret is not being able to work in Destructive Retribution somehow – generally you want undead that are mighty on their own, but occasionally you just have a need to suddenly raise a lot of zombies for a suicidal rush, and it's a nasty surprise if your melee players wade in to fight them. If Dreadful Wrath is retrained after level 8 or so (for whatever reason – say, a party of mind-immune PCs at that point), you could use its slot for Practiced Spellcaster (Cleric), use Battlecaster’s slot for Corpsecrafter, and use Corpsecrafter’s slot for Destructive Retribution. (Or Nimble Bones, which is much better with big, slow undead, but with this many HD under your control, I think you want the booms.) An alternative to this (assuming you’re retraining Dreadful Wrath at a point where the PCs are all fear-immune) is to swap it out for Death Devotion – at that point you’ve got enough attacks per round to pull it off, enough turn attempts to keep it almost always on, and enough Charisma to make that saving throw fearsome (34, IIRC). You won't get much use of this at the late levels (since you're rarely attacking), but it can make your touch absolutely devastating (many negative levels, paralysis, disease, and the effects of one of your touch spells all in one go?).
This build is also built to be ready for epic at a moment’s notice (despite the lack of an official Dread Necromancer epic progression), in case you need him at epic levels for a high-level PC challenge. His epic levels are naturally all Dread Necro//Bone Knight, and at 21st it’s probably Epic Spellcasting, assuming you maxed out Spellcraft and Knowledge: Religion. If you didn’t, there’s a lot of fun thematic feats to match: Undead Mastery / Zone of Animation, Improved / Widen Aura of Despair (yes, there are epic feats for that! The Paladin of Tyranny gets the same feature as the blackguard, so we luck out in epic), or even Negative Energy Burst (which works in an interesting fashion) all fit the theme at different levels of power.
I’ll see about digging up my old notes – since this build descended from a prestige//prestige gestalt project with two separate focuses, and I simplified it by aiming towards one focus, it might have a “cousin” build that aimed at the other focus (for those who were interested, the second focus was “fear”. Yes, this is the version that emphasized the elements other than fear.) Alternatively, you could strip away the gestalt and single-track it if you wanted – in fact, I do have another build available to showcase for that, this build’s “son” of a sort, weaker and non-gestalt but MUCH more appropriate for PCs, named the Lord of the Fallen. He’ll show up later, when his father isn’t so fresh in your mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it. You’re an immortal embodiment of Lawful Evil, with an almost legendary ability to endure any assault, encased in a permanent, skeletal shell of armor Darth Vader style, accompanied by darkness and death and endless legions of the undead, wielding an awesome array of fell magic and projecting a fearful presence that all but orders the weak-minded nearby to cower and submit at the mere sight of you, backed up with a diabolical laugh that only a 32+6 final Charisma can deliver.
In short, if you want an Evil Overlord at just about any level, this is what you’re looking for.
and this...
Quote from: Dream BladeSpoiler
DREAM BLADE
Rest in pieces.
Required Books: Eberron Campaign Setting/Races of Eberron (but see Race and Variants), Tome of Battle, Expanded Psionics Handbook, Complete Warrior, Complete Scoundrel (1 feat, but oh what a feat)
Unearthed Arcana used: None. It’s an Andarious build, you surprised?
Background: A while back Andarious noticed the Combat Brute feat and decided he had to play around with the Momentum Swing maneuver it offered. The first build to come out of this was a little bruiser called the Momentum Blade. If there’s interest in it, we’ll offer it up for the vote later. Andarious wasn’t quite satisfied with the BAB that the Momentum Blade ended up with, so he made a pure warblade build that used the same trick. The result is a nice combo build that will lay out serious hurt every round. After enough levels, you will likely not have to recover your maneuvers unless you’re up against huge groups of opponents, as it’s unlikely that there will be anything left standing after you complete your combo routine.
The Basics
Race: Kalashtar. Nets you the psionic template and enough power points so that a single power draining effect may not totally clean you out. Any psionic race with no LA or Str/Dex penalties will do, or even a human with Wild Talent. Elan’s another option.
Ability Scores: 14/12/14/14/14/8. All your level increases should go into Strength, which is the first ability score to get
Quote from: Mr. GC;591786And if everyone is basket weaving, well no one is there to carry the group through encounters, so expect to hear a sound not unlike a monkey fucking a bell.
GC, the biggest complaint I have about your contributions is a complete lack of consistency.
E.g.
Quote from: Mr. GC;590758Rogues are automatically basket weavers because a non basket weaver would pick a better class. Any will do, even Monk.
Based on these two statements, one would conclude that you believe that a party of Rogues couldn't complete an encounter. There would be no one to carry them.
But we know this isn't true.
The difference in effectiveness between a bad class/kit/weapon and a good one, and some random junk build and one of those is about the same. So everything I said holds true.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591816GC, the biggest complaint I have about your contributions is a complete lack of consistency.
What the fuck. My stance has very clearly and consistently been that of the elitist jerk, you must be this tall to play. Now you might not like it, many basket weavers won't accept it... but you don't get to call it entirely inconsistent as it is in fact entirely consistent. I've moved between different aspects of competence and incompetence, elaborating, detailing, but I haven't changed my stance one iota.
QuoteBased on these two statements, one would conclude that you believe that a party of Rogues couldn't complete an encounter. There would be no one to carry them.
But we know this isn't true.
In a game of D&D, a party of all Rogues would be slaughtered horribly. If you played pretend instead, they might not die. Since most people here find D&D too difficult, I'm not surprised they'd make that claim. But since they're not actually playing the game, what they're doing is claiming that a bad class is viable because they have the cheat codes turned on.
In a party of say, Fighter, Rogue, worthwhile class, worthwhile class, the party might be fine because they can drag the dead weight through encounters. Though if they ever couldn't, the same problem would come up. The point being, teams that go full retard are worse than ones that just have one or two Kennies about.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591873In a game of D&D, a party of all Rogues would be slaughtered horribly. If you played pretend instead, they might not die. Since most people here find D&D too difficult, I'm not surprised they'd make that claim. But since they're not actually playing the game, what they're doing is claiming that a bad class is viable because they have the cheat codes turned on.
In a party of say, Fighter, Rogue, worthwhile class, worthwhile class, the party might be fine because they can drag the dead weight through encounters. Though if they ever couldn't, the same problem would come up. The point being, teams that go full retard are worse than ones that just have one or two Kennies about.
Are you willing to put the 'true Scotsman' stuff away long enough to lay out a challenge where we can test your hyperbole?
And if you're proven wrong, would you concede?
Quote from: mcbobbo;591882Are you willing to put the 'true Scotsman' stuff away long enough to lay out a challenge where we can test your hyperbole?
No, he isn't.
QuoteAnd if you're proven wrong, would you concede?
No, he won't.
I recommend everyone who still thinks this is getting anywhere give the previously linked Den thread a read. At least it features The Gaming Den: Repercussions of Basketweaving.
Quote from: nockermenschGC waited. The threads before him blinked and sparked out of the forum. There were basket-weavers and sandbaggers in The Den. He didn't see them, but had expected them now for years. His warnings to Frank Trollman were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway.
GC was a winner at D&D for fourteen years. When he was young he watched the games and he said to dad "I want to be on the games daddy."
Dad said "No! You will BECOME BASKETWEAVERS"
There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in The Gaming Den he knew there were basketweavers.
"This is Mistborn" the radio crackered. "You must fight the basketweavers!"
So GC gotted his for tiered games and made a thread about winning on D&D.
"HE GOING TO TROLL US" said the basketweavers and sandbaggers
"I will show him" said the basketweaver and he typed angrily. GC showed them how his merciless monsters casted a bunch of DoT spells instead of killing the party at once with direct damage. But then the entire thread fell oh him and they were stunned and not able to type.
"No! I must troll the basketweavers" he shouted
The radio said "No, GC. You are the basketweavers"
And then GC was a sandbagger.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591882Are you willing to put the 'true Scotsman' stuff away long enough to lay out a challenge where we can test your hyperbole?
Quote from: Imperator;591886No, he isn't.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591882And if you're proven wrong, would you concede?
Quote from: Imperator;591886No, he won't.
How can it be taking this long for people to figure that out?
Quote from: Bobloblah;591891How can it be taking this long for people to figure that out?
With all respect, please don't let him dodge the question by responding to YOU instead of to ME.
:)
I see it as a win/win/win. One of these scenarios:
1) He agrees to the challenge, we set it up and test, he's proven to be hyperbolizing beyond what is reasonable and this discussion is over.
2) He ducks it entirely. I can then dismiss his confidence as crap, as he isn't willing to test it.
3) He moves the goalposts again. Which again invalidates his position of 'I have always been consistant'.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591882Are you willing to put the 'true Scotsman' stuff away long enough to lay out a challenge where we can test your hyperbole?
And if you're proven wrong, would you concede?
I believe I've already done that. And what happened was the basket weavers dodged, and evaded, and avoided, spamming useless posts all the while. And then eventually you got someone who could actually talk like a person, and he took up the mantle of defending the gimps. Because see, I gave the basket weavers plenty of chances to prove me wrong when I could just sit here and stick to the facts and they fail each and every time.
Now if you want to go make an all Rogue party and also run through it, you can do that. You will, of course be slaughtered. If you want to talk him into doing so you can, but his current plans, from what little I know of them are far better so that'd be counterproductive for you.
Though actually that does bring up something...
Quote from: Mr. GC;591894Now if you want to go make an all Rogue party and also run through it, you can do that. You will, of course be slaughtered.
I'm seeing it like this:
Character creation rules -
1) Level is 'X'
2) Stats are (some array)
3) Classes acceptable are 'Y, Z'
4) Books considered valid are 'blah'
Module is (this)
Adjudication of (this), (this), or (this) will be out of bounds.
Assuming we can agree to the terms, what happens when the module is completed? More 'true Scotsman'? Or do you really not believe that it can be done?
Hint - I do not believe you believe that it actually can't be done.
Quote from: mcbobbo;591897I'm seeing it like this:
Character creation rules -
1) Level is 'X'
2) Stats are (some array)
3) Classes acceptable are 'Y, Z'
4) Books considered valid are 'blah'
Module is (this)
Adjudication of (this), (this), or (this) will be out of bounds.
Assuming we can agree to the terms, what happens when the module is completed? More 'true Scotsman'? Or do you really not believe that it can be done?
Hint - I do not believe you believe that it actually can't be done.
I 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.
Note: I don't expect people here to agree with this. That's fine, and if you want to post to that effect that is also fine. Save the useless thread derailing posts though. Submit actual content instead.
Gimps, or weak characters, or basket weaver characters, or whatever you want to call them face an eternal struggle to justify their existence. From explaining to their allies what they do and why they should be kept around, to explaining how they deal with various opponents, such as the charger who gets countered by his opponent standing behind a chair or the archer who gets countered by his opponent standing behind a Wind Wall. In each and every one of these cases, the gimp must adequately explain or demonstrate how they are useful, or be removed - kicked from party, killed, whatever.
Everyone knows this by now, and if not they haven't been paying attention. That isn't what I want to focus on though.
What I'd really like to illustrate is that if you have a basket weaver DM, you still face an eternal struggle to justify your existence, it just takes on a different form.
So 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.
Despite my well deserved reputation as a Stop Having Fun Guy, I actually make these arguments because I am about having fun and failure is very much unenjoyable.
From a generic perspective (not 3.5-specific):-
A group of all rogues would be playing a totally different game of D&D than any other party.
For starters, they would be hidden and sneaking ALL THE TIME.
It's like having a permanent mass invisibility effect. A troupe of ninjas moving in on their prey.
NO-ONE is EVER going to get the drop on them.
Every fight is going to start with them knowing the enemy are there long before the enemy know they're there. Then with coordinated movement and sneak attack damage they can attack enemies as isolated individuals, taking them out with sneak attack damage in an instant, and never, EVER fight a toe-to-toe fight.
Sure, magic-using monsters MIGHT screw this up if they're expecting company or have super-duper-dragon-senses, but the answer to this is that the rogues have magic items which may help counter this.
The main hindrance to a rogue doing his job in any party is generally that there are other people there who aren't rogues and can't sneak. Take that away, and the rogue comes into his own... no, you can't join our party, Mr. 20th level Fighter in Full Plate, until you get to at least 5th level rogue and ditch the plate for some leather, or mithril at the very least...
That's not a very clear post.
I'm not sure if you're saying that
(1) non-optimised characters stuggle even in non-combat-focused / non-optimising games
or
(2) in non-combat-focused / non-optimising games, optimised characters are ostracised, and thus effectively the non-optimised characters and the optimised characters have simply switched places and you still have to tailor your character to suit the game but you do so by going basket-weaver instead of by Denner-stye optimisation.
These two alternative meanings are more or less opposite to each other.
There is a great deal more to RPGs than "winning"; "failure" in the sense you mean it need be no impediment to enjoyment whatsoever. I mean, I'm sure someone must have mentioned this already, but have you ever played a Call-of-Cthulhu-style horror game?? If you think of it as a giant monster-hunt, sure, have your fun, but you're just not getting it.
Quote from: Omnifray;591904From a generic perspective (not 3.5-specific):-
A group of all rogues would be playing a totally different game of D&D than any other party.
For starters, they would be hidden and sneaking ALL THE TIME.
Except for the parts where they aren't. Which is actually something like ALL THE TIME because stealth doesn't actually work that way, and is in fact the most easily countered ability in the game.
QuoteIt's like having a permanent mass invisibility effect. A troupe of ninjas moving in on their prey.
NO-ONE is EVER going to get the drop on them.
Invisibility is not countered by 1: Darkvision. 2: Low light vision. 3: Lack of cover/concealment.
Meanwhile, they can be jumped very, very easily. Would you like me to show you how in a different thread?
QuoteEvery fight is going to start with them knowing the enemy are there long before the enemy know they're there. Then with coordinated movement and sneak attack damage they can attack enemies as isolated individuals, taking them out with sneak attack damage in an instant, and never, EVER fight a toe-to-toe fight.
Lmfao. Except for the enemies that have a stealth counter, which is... seriously, like 95% of them.
Or the things with a sneak attack counter, which is around half (assuming you can even get them in a sneak attackable state).
QuoteSure, magic-using monsters MIGHT screw this up if they're expecting company or have super-duper-dragon-senses, but the answer to this is that the rogues have magic items which may help counter this.
The main hindrance to a rogue doing his job in any party is generally that there are other people there who aren't rogues and can't sneak. Take that away, and the rogue comes into his own... no, you can't join our party, Mr. 20th level Fighter in Full Plate, until you get to at least 5th level rogue and ditch the plate for some leather, or mithril at the very least...
The main hindrance to a Rogue doing their job in a party is a complete lack of ability to do that job.
But if you insist, go make a party of 4 10th level Rogues and I will illustrate how they are easily and automatically annihilated.
Quote from: Omnifray;591905That's not a very clear post.
I'm not sure if you're saying that
(1) non-optimised characters stuggle even in non-combat-focused / non-optimising games
or
(2) in non-combat-focused / non-optimising games, optimised characters are ostracised, and thus effectively the non-optimised characters and the optimised characters have simply switched places and you still have to tailor your character to suit the game but you do so by going basket-weaver instead of by Denner-stye optimisation.
Wrong.
What I'm saying is that with a non basket weaver DM, if you're playing a weak character you will spend your entire time justifying your existence in game. Getting shut down easily, then having to answer to your allies about this, that sort of thing.
If you ARE playing with a basket weaver DM, you will spend your entire time justifying your existence
out of game. Weak characters end up needing a whole lot more special attention just to be relevant at all, and to a basket weaver DM, this is you trying to get super powerful as opposed to remotely relevant. If you can't do this, you die anyways, or are forced to leave the game due to having an irrelevant character, whatever. Same problem manifesting in more and different ways.
PS: The Den is fucking terrible at optimization, I'd actually rank them a bit lower than this site just because they actually think they know what they're doing but don't, whereas this site is "We don't know what we're doing, but don't really care." Which is at least honest.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591903Despite my well deserved reputation as a Stop Having Fun Guy, I actually make these arguments because I am about having fun and failure is very much unenjoyable.
This is what I take away from this drivel:
1)Adventuring is sewious business.
2)I cry like a pussy when things don't go my way.
Get a life.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;591908This is what I take away from this drivel:
1)Adventuring is sewious business.
2)I cry like a pussy when things don't go my way.
Get a life.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591903Note: I don't expect people here to agree with this. That's fine, and if you want to post to that effect that is also fine. Save the useless thread derailing posts though. Submit actual content instead.
Further useless posts will be reported.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591909Further useless posts will be reported.
Since the OP had no useful content there isn't a sensible reason for any replies to have any either.
Why did this warrant its own thread apart of the "basket weaver" discussion?
Quote from: Mr. GC;591907Wrong.
What I'm saying is that with a non basket weaver DM, if you're playing a weak character you will spend your entire time justifying your existence in game. Getting shut down easily, then having to answer to your allies about this, that sort of thing.
If you ARE playing with a basket weaver DM, you will spend your entire time justifying your existence out of game. Weak characters end up needing a whole lot more special attention just to be relevant at all, and to a basket weaver DM, this is you trying to get super powerful as opposed to remotely relevant. If you can't do this, you die anyways, or are forced to leave the game due to having an irrelevant character, whatever. Same problem manifesting in more and different ways.
PS: The Den is fucking terrible at optimization, I'd actually rank them a bit lower than this site just because they actually think they know what they're doing but don't, whereas this site is "We don't know what we're doing, but don't really care." Which is at least honest.
OK, now I think what you're complaining about is this:-
Suppose you're playing a weak character class with an anti-munchkin GM and you want to get more juice out of your weak character class by optimising the character, the anti-munchkin GM will go apeshit on your arse because he'll think you're being a total power-hungry munchkin when actually all you are doing is wanting to be "relevant".
The conclusion you seem to draw from this is that anyone who plays a weak character class will tend to spend a lot of time justifying their character generation and advancement choices to the GM.
This conclusion is shown by practical experience to be wrong. Players who choose to play weaker character classes do not generally spend much time justifying character generation and advancement choices to the GM, IME. Why? Because the players who choose to play weaker character classes are generally the ones who, either generally speaking or at that particular moment in time, don't care about character optimisation. They therefore don't optimise their characters, and have no need to justify their existence to the anti-munchkin GM. Plus, the anti-munchkin GM will, if he has a shred of sense, give them a lot more leeway anyway because he knows they're playing weaker characters to start with.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591873If you played pretend instead, they might not die. Since most people here find D&D too difficult, I'm not surprised they'd make that claim. But since they're not actually playing the game, what they're doing is claiming that a bad class is viable because they have the cheat codes turned on.
Other people pretend they are playing D&D on hard mode by hiding their incompetence behind a wall of numbers and Gish Galloping about classes, spells and equipment. Taking it one step further into the truly absurd, they then make the wild claim that all games are like this, despite having exactly zero knowledge or experience with anything other than D&D 3.5. Somehow, they think this makes them badass players and the best at everything involving RPGs, shielding themselves with an impenetrable wall of solipsism against the endless barrage of being proven 100% wrong about everything.
This is the foundation of their fantasy world where sucking up to the DM with their character sheet is better than engaging in actual social interaction because numbers. Hence, they think that the former is hardcore and the latter is Magical Tea Party and/or Mother may I. In fact, they are both Magical Tea Party, which is accepted by normally socialized, well-adjusted adults. This causes inconsolable rage for the charop-fappers, who then insist everyone
else is the problem in all instances, even outside RPG matters.
Pathetic sack of shit oxygen thieves, in other words.
Quote from: Benoist;591913Why did this warrant its own thread apart of the "basket weaver" discussion?
Mr G C obviously has a bee in his bonnet and is on a crusade to prove the visionary nature of his understanding of the hobby.
Can't think where else I've seen that before :p
Hey 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.
Yup, it's Stormbringer, and he is as irrelevant as ever. Now go away Stormbringer, meaningful people are speaking.
Quote from: Benoist;591913Why did this warrant its own thread apart of the "basket weaver" discussion?
Because 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.
Quote from: Omnifray;591916OK, now I think what you're complaining about is this:-
Suppose you're playing a weak character class with an anti-munchkin GM and you want to get more juice out of your weak character class by optimising the character, the anti-munchkin GM will go apeshit on your arse because he'll think you're being a total power-hungry munchkin when actually all you are doing is wanting to be "relevant".
The conclusion you seem to draw from this is that anyone who plays a weak character class will tend to spend a lot of time justifying their character generation and advancement choices to the GM.
This conclusion is shown by practical experience to be wrong. Players who choose to play weaker character classes do not generally spend much time justifying character generation and advancement choices to the GM, IME. Why? Because the players who choose to play weaker character classes are generally the ones who, either generally speaking or at that particular moment in time, don't care about character optimisation. They therefore don't optimise their characters, and have no need to justify their existence to the anti-munchkin GM. Plus, the anti-munchkin GM will, if he has a shred of sense, give them a lot more leeway anyway because he knows they're playing weaker characters to start with.
What 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.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591906Except for the parts where they aren't. Which is actually something like ALL THE TIME because stealth doesn't actually work that way, and is in fact the most easily countered ability in the game.
Invisibility is not countered by 1: Darkvision. 2: Low light vision. 3: Lack of cover/concealment.
Meanwhile, they can be jumped very, very easily. Would you like me to show you how in a different thread?
Lmfao. Except for the enemies that have a stealth counter, which is... seriously, like 95% of them.
Or the things with a sneak attack counter, which is around half (assuming you can even get them in a sneak attackable state).
The main hindrance to a Rogue doing their job in a party is a complete lack of ability to do that job.
But if you insist, go make a party of 4 10th level Rogues and I will illustrate how they are easily and automatically annihilated.
I 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.
Quote from: Mr. GC;591894Because see, I gave the basket weavers plenty of chances to prove me wrong when I could just sit here and stick to the facts and they fail each and every time.
I 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?"
Forget 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?
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 (http://www.damninteresting.com/unskilled-and-unaware-of-it/) '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.
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.
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.
Sorry folks, due to my fat moderator fingers i merged a closed thread with an active one - which sort of undoes the point of closing one in the first place.
So i'm closing the parent thread too.
If you really must have an RPGsite vs Mr. GC thread, please keep it to one thread in future please.