Quote from: Rincewind1;499975More like "If booze didn't kill all your grey cells, this will"

My theory: alcohol is the brain's evolutionary event.  It kills braincells, but only the weak ones that deserve to die!  So at the end of the day you're left with strong brain cells!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;499977My theory: alcohol is the brain's evolutionary event.  It kills braincells, but only the weak ones that deserve to die!  So at the end of the day you're left with strong brain cells!

Think of it as Evolution in Action!

Quote from: jeff37923;499763This is what the little voices in your head are saying. I do not think that everyone who defends or likes 4E is a 4E evangelist and have made that very clear. You choose to ignore that fact because it would prevent you from demonstrating your zealotry as a 4E evangelist.

See, your only trick is insisting 4E zealotry. That's all you've got.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763Nope, I can't. I think 4E supports combat over role-play by the entire way that 4E has been written.

And this is your other trick. You make a retarded claim without any support to it and then expect it to actually mean anything.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763If it is getting old, maybe you should give up your 4E evangelising about it.

Maybe you should give up the same tired old condescending idiocy.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763Upthread, when TCO claimed that you could put skill points into your "to hit" modifier in 3E and you agreed with him, that shows a Gross Conceptual Error. Thinking that in a Role-Playing Game, the most important thing is Combat is also a Gross Conceptual Error.

You have a really twisted idea of what D&D is about, and about what the term RPG means and doesn't mean. Also please provide a quote, otherwise I'll just have to assume, as normal, that you're pulling things out of your ass.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763Um, as moves you can do against an opponent in combat?

You don't really believe that combat moves like grapple, trip, and disarm are examples of role-playing do you?

Goddamn you're bad at this. Okay, sure, I'll spell it out for you. Combat moves like those are every bit as much roleplaying, by themselves, as rolling skill checks. You have some disconnect that makes non-combat mechanics somehow ~*magical roleplaying enhancers*~ even though there's nothing but your insistence to support that.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763There are Professions in AD&D2 and there is a shortened Skill selection in 4E. Do you even know what role-playing is? Have you ever role-played? Do you know how to describe a character's personality and how skills that character has will help in the description and thus help the ability to role-play that character?

Do you know how to do any of these things without rules to tell you how? Personally, I've found that I can describe a character with a background as a sailor just as well if I don't have to spend metagame points on his ability to perform as a basic human being.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763There is more to RPGs than the Combat Encounter.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763See, I've heard this crap before about the Bard. A Bard in 3.x or AD&D2 is not a front-line combatant, however it is as combat effective as a Predator Drone on the modern battlefield. You have to know how to use one, and the Bard's main use is not the Combat Encounter but everything that happens in between them.

Hahahahahahahahahaha oh my god you didn't even read what you typed. "The bard is combat effective, but it's not really combat effective it's good outside of combat."

Quote from: jeff37923;4997634E changed all that. The Bard is now a Leader, but with the focus turned to the Combat Encounter, the Bard's previous usefulness in AD&D2 and 3.x has been thrown away. This is why you heard Players bemoan the Bard as combat ineffective, useless Jack-Of-All-Trades before 4E and hear them cheer that "The Bard is Good in combat now!!" with 4E.

You know what's great about the 4E bard? It retains the jack-of-all-trades and becomes useful in combat. I know, I know, you think that characters being good at combat by default's a bad thing, for some reason. But being good at fighting while also being good at other aspects of the game doesn't make roleplay any harder, or less supported.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763It drives home the point that D&D 4E's focus is the Combat Encounter. While that is neither good nor bad, it is not my preferred style of role-playing game.

Not to anyone rational, it doesn't. A balanced combat system is anathema to you, I guess, but it's pretty ignorant to insist that balance vs imbalance makes one system less about RP. If you're gonna argue that point you may want to go play FATAL, because obviously it must be the most roleplaying game of them all.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763All I can say is that it sounds like you never got into the role-playing aspect of the role-playing game.

All I can say is that it sounds like you're incapable of actually roleplaying. You apparently can't roleplay without rules telling you that you can make a Mastercraft Basket if you roll 30 on your Craft (Baskets) roll.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763In a Combat Encounter focused game, you are correct. However, there are more ways to play D&D than just as a series of loosely connected combat encounters. Would you deny those who prefer to play it solely as combat oriented their use of the game?

You are nothing but strawman after strawman.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763Well, you have been dodging the question about your RPG experience for awhile now, so it is naturally suspect.

Not to anyone who matters.

Quote from: jeff37923;499763As to your understanding of role-playing? My opinion is that it is weak. You do not comprehend how skills can support role-playing and have suggested that combat maneuvers are examples of role-playing. You also have found the Bard character class useless before 4E (due to its perceived combat ineffectiveness) and of all the classes in existance, the Bard was designed for role-playing.

Yeah, obviously since I don't support your childish belief that skill mechanics = RP I must not actually know how to roleplay. The pre-4E bard was certainly useless to people who weren't into charop, feel free to argue that. 4E just lets anyone play a bard who's competent both inside and outside of combat, without requiring them to jump through four different splatbooks.

I can't tell whether jeff is getting trolled or Darwin is.

Quote from: B.T.;499995I can't tell whether jeff is getting trolled or Darwin is.

I am and it has worn me out.

Quote from: Darwinism;499993See, my only trick is 4E zealotry. That's all I've got.

Fixed it for you.

You win, you are a 4venger. Wear the vestments of Your Favorite Game with pride.

Quote from: jeff37923;499981Think of it as Evolution in Action!

Darwinism?

Quote from: One Horse Town;499998Darwinism?

I see what you did there...

Quote from: thedungeondelver;499977My theory: alcohol is the brain's evolutionary event.  It kills braincells, but only the weak ones that deserve to die!  So at the end of the day you're left with strong brain cells!

"To alcohol- the cause of, and solution to, all our problems!"
-Homer Simpson

I'm at work, so I'll gladly frivol away my time arguing with Darwin.

QuoteCombat moves like those are every bit as much roleplaying, by themselves, as rolling skill checks. You have some disconnect that makes non-combat mechanics somehow ~*magical roleplaying enhancers*~ even though there's nothing but your insistence to support that.

Rolling skill checks is not roleplaying.  The difference is that skill checks are more often used in scenarios that focus on roleplaying.

QuoteDo you know how to do any of these things without rules to tell you how? Personally, I've found that I can describe a character with a background as a sailor just as well if I don't have to spend metagame points on his ability to perform as a basic human being.

Yes.  However, when I say my character is a sailer, I want the game mechanics to reflect that.  The game mechanics are how my character interacts with the game world, which means that when I say I'm a sailer, I want to be able to steer a ship, tie rigging, and so on.  The game needs to let me do this.

I'm ignoring the idiocy about the bard because I don't give a damn.

QuoteI'm at work, so I'll gladly frivol away my time arguing with Darwin.

And people complain about the economy.

Quote from: B.T.;500025I'm ignoring the idiocy about the bard because I don't give a damn.

The Bard will be astride that elephant in the room.

Quote from: B.T.;500025Yes.  However, when I say my character is a sailer, I want the game mechanics to reflect that.  The game mechanics are how my character interacts with the game world, which means that when I say I'm a sailer, I want to be able to steer a ship, tie rigging, and so on.  The game needs to let me do this.

To steal a line from Ben:

"The rules are not the game.  The game is not the rules."

The mechanics are how my character interacts with the game world.  If my character is sneaky, then I expect the rules to support this.  If my character is strong, then I expect the rules to support this.  If my character is a sailer, he should be able to do sailer-oriented things.  

This does not mean that the rules have to be complex.  If the rule is as simple as "your character knows how to manage a ship and navigate at sea," then I'm fine with that.

Quote from: B.T.;500081The mechanics are how my character interacts with the game world.

Wrong. You interact with the game world by talking to the GM and/or the other players who share the imagined space with you (you can even interact with the game world without that, actually, by visualizing the shared world in your head, but that's close enough an approximation for our purpose). The rules are a mean of adjudication to find out what happens in the game world for actions which would require them. That's all they are. Just one mean amongst others to adjudicate and share the imagined world together.