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.