I know there's not much that can be done to fix things at this point- things have been said; feelings have been hurt; egos have been bruised.
However, gentlemen, let us lay all that aside, so that, for a moment, we can all contemplate what is truly important, and that is, of course, the modern beacon of sanity that is The Princess Leia Slavegirl Carwash.

Quote from: J Arcane;378163Whether in real life, or on the internet, once you start threatening violence over an argument, you've officially declared your own failure.

Especially on the internet.

Deaduematsu never threatened anyone. Do any of you guys ever go back and actually see where these things fall of the rails?

Quote from: Tavis;378161The 3E scene in which point-buy stats become the norm, you customize your character with feats (similar to Champions advantages), you build up your own class one multiclass-build choice per level, etc. doesn't intrinsically make your characters into superheroes - but it does make the experience of D&D feel a lot more like the experience of playing a superhero RPG, as those had been understood up 'til that point.

Yes -- exactly what I was thinking. It's not about power at all, it's about the experience of the game and the type of support the game framework gives you.

Cheers,
-E.

Actually I highly doubt Benoist and others would be so obnoxious face-to-face. The fact that he (and others) construed my response as a threat as opposed to a call to reality (that such behavior wouldn't fly in person with normal people) is testament to how internet anonymity only helps to feed antisocial behavior.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;378174...is testament to how internet anonymity only helps to feed antisocial behavior.

You have become more self-reflecting of late.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;378174Actually I highly doubt Benoist and others would be so obnoxious face-to-face.

Nice backpedaling, tough guy.

If disagreeing with you constitutes "being obnoxious" by your book, and it looks like it does, then yes, I certainly would be just as "obnoxious" face-to-face.

Obnoxious individuals in person, resemble clowns than anything intimidating.  Just like the sidewalk preacher on a street corner, or a homeless bum yelling their heads off at nobody.

@StormBringer: Hahaha... stay out of this. We know you're psychotic.

@Benoist: No backpedaling at all. Seriously, the reason why you and others first thought of violence is... because if somebody instigated with you in RL, you would have caved their face in. Be honest, Ben. The reason why you're on the internet is because you can't have a conservation IRL without mauling someone.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;378028I agree. This is what I'm talking about when I refer to controlling the context. If you get to define the game's goals in terms of winning/losing, and you get to define the win/loss conditions, and you get to define the challenges that the players have to overcome, then it's possible to define balance into the game. Otherwise it's a questionable concept.

What if options were only balanced against comparable options?

For example: There are many options for combat specialisation (melee, ranged, defensive, offensive, groups or high damage, etc), each of which is equal-ish... or at least they allow you to fill different roles in combat. And then there are many options for social specialisation (political power, wit and charm, scariness, whatever). And so on and so forth.

Would that be a better description of a "balance" worth striving for? If for no other reason than so that one can relate to the striving for balance.

Quote from: RandallS;378051One RPG campaign or play style's "waste of space" is another campaign or play style's  "must have." This is  especially true in a general purpose RPG like D&D has been (up until 4e when it suddenly became far more specialized for a specific style of play). Player options that might never be used in the campaigns and styles of play you enjoy might always be used in those enjoyed by another person.

Perhaps this is a possible old school/new school divide? Popular old school games tended to be more general (useful for a wide variety of campaigns and styles of play) whereas popular new school games tend to be less general (more focused on a specific style of play -- or a related group of styles of play).

Eh... I addressed this in my post somewhat, and as you mention 3.x kind of straddles the border between old and new in that case. 3.x is not what anyone would really consider old school, however general it is.

Quote from: Tavis;378161However, I think the biggest changes from 2E to 3E, and the ones that were least based on existing houserules, were things that let you design your character to match your vision of them, the way you would in Champions, instead of going through a process of rolling dice and choosing from a very narrow palette of choices, the way you would in D&D or Traveller.

This is probably one of the most accurate "dividing lines" drawn in this thread. I'm liking this part of the conversation.

But it's reminding me that the only supers games I've played are Marvel FASERIP, which is way too rolly and random for me, and M&M which is way to in-depth buildy for me... is Champions okay?

@Benoist: I'm not a chicken. If you want to fight so much, where's the offer of a boxing match? Since this is something you're pestering me about, you can do the footwork and pay for my travel, room, and board expenses. Let me know if this suits you.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;378181@StormBringer: Hahaha... stay out of this. We know you're psychotic.

That's what my psychiatrist said in the Air Force, too.

Seriously, guys?

Quote from: DeadUematsu;378195@Benoist: I'm not a chicken. If you want to fight so much, where's the offer of a boxing match? Since this is something you're pestering me about, you can do the footwork and pay for my travel, room, and board expenses. Let me know if this suits you.

Benoist, among others, likes to think he's not elitist despite acting so, and no amount of arguing or name calling will enlighten him on this.