Quote from: silva;666514What Emperor said.

I wonder if ina real life table the snobbery and one-true-wayism would prevail. I suspect not. I think its an internet thing.

before the internet, it was a fanzine letter thing. I've never seen the arguments on online rpg forums come up with a RL game group in practice. OTOH, people are more or less satisfied with certain games, but generally they wont talk about it, they'll either stop playing, look for another group, or get kicked out of a group.

I've always had the impression that most of the more vocal extremists about "badwrongfun" and "correct design" generally don't play much. Or, in some cases, they play with their mom or like one friend, where the game remains more a selfish affair revolving around that one person's tastes. There's one game designer who threw a big stink about how his homebrew was the bestgame ever and all other game designs were inferior (sound familiar?), on rpgnet, who got kicked off in a predictably timely manner. Anyways, looed his game up online and found links to a couple hundred youtube videos of him playing his game with his mother and, funnily enough, what appeared to be a homeless guy. As he ran the game he talked constantly about how he created the system, why, and constantly looked for reinforcement about how cool & imaginative he was.

That kind of experience is millions of miles apart from the gatherings of friends on game night I'm used to.

Quote from: Rincewind1;666541Post threads you want to happen, Norton. I only see you whine about us being unjust grognards.

I'll admit, I'm a fairly quiet person in general in places where I'm not as well known. I don't speak up a lot unless I see things that annoy me.

I could indeed post more. But while I enjoy reading this site, I don't think my playstyle really matches the culture of this site.

I don't like old school D&D (honestly, I don't like D&D as a whole), I don't like BRP, I play mostly newer games (though I have a love of a lot of older SETTINGS, I really really like the setting of Cyberpunk 2020, but I found the rules just kind of awful) and since I'm not into old school D&D, I'm not much into OSR either (though I have Stars without Number, and it was interesting enough).

I don't consider narrative games a threat to all RPGs, I don't think they are evil, just a different way to play, though if someone doesn't like them that's fine. I enjoy MHRP and Fate (even the "narrativist" aspects parts). And I can play in character in both without any trouble. I find mechanics interesting and enjoy rulesets, and I appreciate my players actually knowing how to play the game.

I don't play the way a lot of people on this site do, and I'm OK with that. While I find a lot of conversation here interesting, I doubt many people here would find what I have to say interesting, or worse yet, I would be labelled a troll for daring to call MHRP an RPG, or saying that I can play the game in character, rather than it just be a legitimate belief based on actual play experience.

I do think I will attempt to post more though, just so people can get some other part of my personality than "annoyed".

Quote from: Rincewind1;666541Post threads you want to happen, Norton. I only see you whine about us being unjust grognards.

Funny, you a grognard.

Quote from: Sommerjon;666616Funny, you a grognard.

Seriously?!

I'm ignoring you until you learn to write.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;666412The only difference between slam and deep wound is that slam is melee only, and imposes disadvantage.  Only an idiot would bring up extra AC because slam doesn't grant extra AC.  Nothing about that maneuver gives a bonus to AC over anyone else who happens to be using shield.

Also, seeing as how you can only use ED a few times per encounter, you're also mistaken about how often ranged vs. melee comes up in combat in re: to the importance of the maneuver.  I'm assuming that you, like most Next whiners, haven't actually played it.  Otherwise you'd know that you can't just keep using that maneuver over and over.

For example, many times (in all editions) encounters start at some sort of range.  Someone with deep wound instead of slam allows the fighter to throw an axe, spear, javelin whatever with extra damage right off the bat when the encounter starts before they get within melee, possibly taking out an enemy before the get a chance to attack you.  With slam, you have to wait until you close into melee first.

Point is, they all have advantages and one isn't clearly better than the other.  And the uber point that I was making was that the argument of "fighters will always use ED to increase damage because it's always the better choice" is flawed and false.  I already gave two examples why.  I'm just angry with myself that I allowed you to draw me into your red herring because your supposes disagreement didn't actually have anything to do with what I was saying.

You're bitching about the spreadsheet dps crowd but don't understand what makes them tick,  You're making assumptions based on your ideas and not theirs.

I am amused by you declarations of why they are clueless.

You call my musings a red herring lets look at the bullshit you posted up.
"For example, using "sieze the advantage", which gives you advantage on your next attack against an opponent that missed you works great when you use your expertise dice to increase your AC rather than damage, causing the opponent to miss you, which in turn allows you to use "sieze the advantage".

Your big checkmate move needs:
you to have a dexterity of 11 or higher
you to have a feat
you to have the Parry option
you to roll for bonus AC and have them miss
you to spend your reaction to gain 'seize the advantage'

vs.
you need the Deep Wounds or Slam option
you need to hit to roll extra damage

You called Slam stupid because you have to be in melee to do it. Well Socrates let's gander at "Seize the Advantage" (for others who don't know it's a Feat) then
Prerequisite: Dexterity 11 or higher
Benefit: When a creature within 5 feet of you misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to gain advantage on your next attack against that creature before the end of your next turn.
So I'm throwing red herrings because Slam has to be done in melee, yet the brillianceness is awe inspiring?
See Deep Wounds doesn't require a shield so Mr. Greatswordman can use just as easily as Mr. Longswordman, but Mr Greatswordsman cannot use Slam and that gives me an AC boost.  
See Slam does one of them there thingies you were talking about, helps protect the group because,  wait for it...it gives disadvantage to the opponent. Deep Wounds doesn't.

Just think what could happen if you were playing a halfling fighter who used a shield, took slam as an option and had the Seize the Advantage feat.
See then you could attack(if you hit) Slam, giving the opponent disadvantage, then since he has a much better chance of missing you the next round you can 'seize the advantage and get advantage on your next swing.  But we can't do something like that here that is too much like munchkinpowergameybullshitness, no, here we are supposed to ask the Dm if it's possible to swing with our shield and hope against hope that it can cause something to happen.

The solution is not to play such a stupid fucking system with such stupid fucking people, as people learn when they achieve basic social skills and literacy.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;666597I'll admit, I'm a fairly quiet person in general in places where I'm not as well known. I don't speak up a lot unless I see things that annoy me.

I could indeed post more. But while I enjoy reading this site, I don't think my playstyle really matches the culture of this site.

I don't like old school D&D (honestly, I don't like D&D as a whole), I don't like BRP, I play mostly newer games (though I have a love of a lot of older SETTINGS, I really really like the setting of Cyberpunk 2020, but I found the rules just kind of awful) and since I'm not into old school D&D, I'm not much into OSR either (though I have Stars without Number, and it was interesting enough).

I don't consider narrative games a threat to all RPGs, I don't think they are evil, just a different way to play, though if someone doesn't like them that's fine. I enjoy MHRP and Fate (even the "narrativist" aspects parts). And I can play in character in both without any trouble. I find mechanics interesting and enjoy rulesets, and I appreciate my players actually knowing how to play the game.

I don't play the way a lot of people on this site do, and I'm OK with that. While I find a lot of conversation here interesting, I doubt many people here would find what I have to say interesting, or worse yet, I would be labelled a troll for daring to call MHRP an RPG, or saying that I can play the game in character, rather than it just be a legitimate belief based on actual play experience.

I do think I will attempt to post more though, just so people can get some other part of my personality than "annoyed".

Ok, I will support that MHRP is an rpg, and that when I played it I was quite able to play in character.