Quote from: CRKrueger;366806Am I the only one that sees the irony?

Like Goldy and Silvery only made of iron?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;366517For one thing, trying to compare 3.5 and 4e characters is like comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work that well, because the underlying assumptions of the two systems are rather different.

For another, your comparison is dishonest at best. Of course the 10th-level character in 3.5 is going to look absurd and complicated when compared to a 1st-level 4e character. Go ahead and throw any other 10th-level character up here, it'll look just as absurd. This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and five-course meals.

First, it was not my comparison I just commented on it.

Second, fuck you for describing it as dishonest when, at worst, it was just simplistic.

But third, yeah, put up a 10th level 4e character compared to that 3e character, and you will STILL see a disparity in complexity.  The 4e 10th level character doesn't look a whole lot different as far as text on the screen than the 1st level.  That was part of the point of building in replacement powers to 4e rather than additional powers.  

Are you really now arguing 4e is equally complex compared to 3e, after a year of you arguing it's simplistic?

Christ Gnomeworks, you sure are a piece of work sometimes.  You're overly enthusiastic defense of 3x takes you to some absurd levels on occasion.

Quote from: Thanlis;366651Total threads in the LFR WotC messageboard: 1,913, with 35,506 posts.

Total threads in the Character Optimization WotC messageboard: 7,783, with 142,569 posts.

I'm not sayin' that there's not a group of 4e players who deserve your annoyance, I'm just sayin' it's not the LFR crowd.

So the majority char-op regulars are people who don't play LFR because they don't ever post in LFR? Or because they don't post as much in the LFR subboard as on the char-op forum?

Sorry, strikes me as a complete non sequitur, to look at two distinct forums and not even look at who's writing the posts in these.

There's also the suppressed premise that the char-op forum is WotC main source they listen to when doing errata. It's not that I can fully substantiate my own premises (as in, it's LFR who is the major influential force when it comes to errating stuff like the Orbwizard) but at least I mention them.

Quote from: Windjammer;366816So the majority char-op regulars are people who don't play LFR because they don't ever post in LFR? Or because they don't post as much in the LFR subboard as on the char-op forum?

Sorry, strikes me as a complete non sequitur, to look at two distinct forums and not even look at who's writing the posts in these.

Um, no offense, but did you read my whole post?

"There are a few CharOp posters who also play LFR, but it's really not a huge overlap."

I did address that exact point. I know this because I actually read the threads, more in the LFR boards than the char op board, but I keep light track.

QuoteThere's also the suppressed premise that the char-op forum is WotC main source they listen to when doing errata. It's not that I can fully substantiate my own premises (as in, it's LFR who is the major influential force when it comes to errating stuff like the Orbwizard) but at least I mention them.

Heh. Sorry, wasn't trying to be subtle about it. That was in fact my point -- there's much more discussion of the broken in the char-op boards, and it's largely not people who post in the LFR boards.

The thing is, you can't execute the "best" combos within the LFR context because the really broken crap assumes you can choose your own magic items. LFR doesn't give you the same flexibility. Also, there aren't many LFR characters above level 14 and none above level 17, so about half of the really extreme char op discussion is completely irrelevant.

It'd be facile and incorrect for me to claim that there aren't char-op types in LFR, but the char-op phenomenon -- which I find distasteful and perhaps even harmful -- hasn't been created by LFR.

Unfortunately, the fact that I have more experience with LFR and its culture than probably anyone on this board outside AM is completely negated by the fact that I'm fond of 4e, so nobody's ever going to listen to my informed opinion. C'est la vie.

Quote from: Mistwell;366811First, it was not my comparison I just commented on it.

...ah, true that. My bad.

QuoteSecond, fuck you for describing it as dishonest when, at worst, it was just simplistic.

Your fury amuses me.

Yes, it is a dishonest comparison. Apparently 4e has minotaurs playable right out of the gate. 3.5 has no such option, at least not that can reasonably - for a very loose definition of "reasonably" - be compared to a 4e character.

Not only that, but the 3.5 minotaur here looks to me as though written up specifically to play up the whole "3.5 is needlessly complex" drivel. Of course the stat block is going to look cluttered when you list out every Perform subskill.

QuoteThe 4e 10th level character doesn't look a whole lot different as far as text on the screen than the 1st level.

That's because the complexity has shifted from the character sheet to the powers sheet.

As I said earlier, it's not a fair comparison. The two systems are too different to make any kind of reasonable comparison. Comparing two characters at vastly different points in the scale of power in their respective editions doesn't help, but even if you do straight-up comparisons (4e 15th vs 3.5 10th, for instance), it's still going to be largely unhelpful. All it does is let the 4e camp say, "See? See? Our system is easier to use," when you know damn well 4e's complexity is not on the character sheet.

QuoteAre you really now arguing 4e is equally complex compared to 3e, after a year of you arguing it's simplistic?

I am fairly certain you have confused me for someone else. Feel free to cite your source(s), though, if any.

QuoteChrist Gnomeworks, you sure are a piece of work sometimes.  You're overly enthusiastic defense of 3x takes you to some absurd levels on occasion.

I like how you characterize me as overly defensive of 3.5. You clearly haven't been paying attention, because I'm not particularly fond of 3.5, either. Hell, I'm not particularly fond of D&D in general.

I am more active in my distaste for 4e than I am for 3.5, because 4e is - generally - more relevant in modern discussion.

Also, my W is capitalized.

Quote from: Thanlis;366858The thing is, you can't execute the "best" combos within the LFR context because the really broken crap assumes you can choose your own magic items.

Thanks, that's a really good point I had not considered.

Quote from: Thanlis;366858the char-op phenomenon ... hasn't been created by LFR.

I wouldn't claim so either.

Quote from: Thanlis;366858Unfortunately, the fact that I have more experience with LFR and its culture than probably anyone on this board outside AM is completely negated by the fact that I'm fond of 4e, so nobody's ever going to listen to my informed opinion. C'est la vie.

On the contrary, I actually take your assessments of the WotC boards at face value since I don't have any experience with them and absolutely no reason to think you're dishonest (or unable to pick up such trends).

There's one factor you haven't addressed (not that you need to) - which is that out of all the people out there playing 4E there's exactly one segment which requires these fixes to be conducted by the publisher. There's no houseruling in LFR. There's no "oh, Joe, you can't play this broken combo or exploit this feat chain because I, as the DM, tell you that you can't". This is how broken stuff gets taken care off at home games. But it's not possible for a LFR DM to do that. So I guess players and DMs substantially pissed off at broken stuff turning up at their LFR tables will get rather vocal to customer feedback.

I have no idea how strong this 'factor' is a formative contribution to what errata get released when. It's just a thought of mine, not substantiated by any official claims etc.

Quote from: Windjammer;366916There's one factor you haven't addressed (not that you need to) - which is that out of all the people out there playing 4E there's exactly one segment which requires these fixes to be conducted by the publisher. There's no houseruling in LFR. There's no "oh, Joe, you can't play this broken combo or exploit this feat chain because I, as the DM, tell you that you can't". This is how broken stuff gets taken care off at home games. But it's not possible for a LFR DM to do that. So I guess players and DMs substantially pissed off at broken stuff turning up at their LFR tables will get rather vocal to customer feedback.

I have no idea how strong this 'factor' is a formative contribution to what errata get released when. It's just a thought of mine, not substantiated by any official claims etc.

Nah, that's definitely a thing. And I can't be absolutely sure either. I used to think LFR was a big deal when it came to errata, but back in the fall WotC released a batch of errata which substantially affected LFR... and then Chris Tulach left the country for a week to judge a Magic tournament. I have never seen so many pissed off LFR players in my life.

The other piece of history I don't have is the relationship of the char-op boards to Living Greyhawk. I know 3e char-op was also a big deal, but I don't know if char-op was big into LG or what. If it was, my thinking would change again.

Interestingly, the next version of the LFR rules, currently under construction, is not being written by WotC. I dunno what that means either.

Edit: and also, just for the sake of getting it on the table -- I think LFR would be a substantially better campaign if it put more power in the hands of the DM. To the degree that it treats D&D as a black box with less room for human input and judgement, the game becomes less fun. Obviously I enjoy LFR either way, but there's some social fabric getting strained every time some smartass player says "don't care, that's what the books say so you gotta allow it." I do not see it at my tables, and if I did I'd probably play less LFR, but I know it exists in some playgroups.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366655Wow, thanks for the tip! But I really don't need your help figuring out what roleplaying is.

Once your'e in the social arena and it isn't just your 5 pals from public school, D&D really is a team game, (and it's about intrepid adventurers rather than comedic bumblers). In the case of RegCon, people have paid money and actually gotten hotel-space to be in the event-- so while I'm still not planning on creating the superoptimized halfling fighter, I'm also not going to create an intentionally crappy character in order to deliberately sabotage the rest of the groups I'm in through ineptitude and call it roleplaying, either. As fun as that may be.

I understand where you are coming from, I can see how it makes sense and I can respect that.

That is also the kind of game I avoid like the plague. There is a balance in all roleplaying games between substance and style. For me the style, the creative aspect is the real draw. Achievement in rolpelaying game (or MMO) doesn't really do much for me, it's not like we are playing for money (maybe we should?).

Of course you are correct, putting style first does imply sticking with like-minded players, though I;m not sure I don't get the public school comment. Was it a cheap shot?