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.

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.

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?