Quote from: jibbajibba;586261I think that you would have to agree that the implication in the original rant was that this was a feature of the 'New entitled player' as represented by the denner invasion not something that happened in the old days when we carved our own dice out of rocks.

In fact its always been there a spotlight hogging player is a spotlight hogging player. Competition between players is as old as the game.

I could see that, except for the posts when I said, "Paladin/Ranger in AD&D, Psionists in 2e,  ..."  I would hope that those statements would imply that it wasn't related to any Denner invasion, or any class in particular.

The problem that caused this thread to spiral was that as soon as I mentioned the word "wizard" in that group, they ignored all the rest and focused on a FvW topic all over again.

That, and GC making some really blatantly wrong things about older editions and how it was played while calling everyone else a retard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586248"I have repeatedly shown I know more about older editions than any of you."

"Really?  Here's something where you were objectively wrong.  And here's another.  And yet another.  Oh, and here's another.  Really, it seems like you just google'd 'haste' off of WoTCs board, because everything else you've said is objectively incorrect about older editions. "


1 hour later

"I have repeatedly shown I know more about older editions than any of you."




:idunno:

Look folks, at this point it's futile.  No wonder why they like to go into threads and say, "I win all of these discussions."  I imagine it's easy to think you're winning when you completely ignore all the actual factual data points that have proven you wrong.  It's sort of like arguing with the person who thinks the world is flat or that evolution is a myth.  Eventually you just have to shake your head and ignore them.

What the hell GC made one claim about 2e and that was Haste fucking kills you and guess what Haste fucking kills you. You're the one claiming victory here and with far less reason. So yeah you guys are the creationists here.

Quote from: jibbajibba;586256don't get me wrong Brendan I thimk you come out of the discussions very well.
I took like discussion backed up with thought.

ON the topic of playstyles I think that the emergence of a 'therpgsite' playstyle is probably a shame. the strength of the site, outside wild hyperbole on story games, was that all playstyles were welcome.

On the topic of other threads they do emerge and in terms of number of threads the Denner vs OSR probably only get 30% but in terms of posts they get 80%. So a thread about Super hero play might get 30 posts but a post on Why are wizards rubbish in D&D will get 300. But its the general threads that often become focus of the debate. So a thread on balance rarely touches Warfare versus Strength in Amber or the benefits of certain edges in SW and quickly settles down to why 1e D&D is the best game ever or why 3e fighters need more shit.

Part of that is people like a good internet fight. Look at the 5E threads on Enworld, all the high view/post threads have flamewar tags next to them. It is probably no different here. You beat it by volume. Start more threads about other topics and post on them more often. I just started a zombie apocalypse thread for that purpose.

As someone who usually plays other games that are not D&D, i welcome such discussions. I will try to contibute threads myself as well. We have a monthly one shot in my group for new or unusual rpgs so I may start posting about it regularly in the actual play forum.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586257I started a rant about individual players feeling like they need to compete and win against other players.  That had nothing to do with edition or class v class, but a personality defect of an individual.   You can't blame me for them coming in and turning into yet another fvw thread.  Hell, LM even admitted that's what he does, over and over.

Dude, do you even read these threads?  Fighter v. Wizard?
1. 3e RAW is unbalanced concerning FvW. Period.
2. Most of the Denners admit to never even reading 1e, let alone 2e.

So what do these threads come down to?
1. Whether or not you play RAW or assume the GM is going to make adjustments as need be.
2. There are (sometimes significant) differences between D&D editions.

Pure Edition/Culture War on the CharOp Front, Entitled Special Snowflake Spotlight Front, and the Mother May I Front, all fought from the two soapboxes of Rebel Without A Clue vs. Get Off My Lawn.

Again, WTF did you think was going to happen?  There are some cool, sane people on this site.  Going to batshit fucking crazy sites, seeing shit that pisses you off, coming here to bitch about it which summons those batshit crazy fuckers here isn't a way to reward the sane posters.  Really, it isn't.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586259This.

In fact, I'd wager that in any situation where you're entering a new peer group, strutting isn't the way to make friends.  They seem to only rise to fight, and in that way I do feel the 'invasion' label sticks.

Now, that might possibly be in response to bad treatment, but there have certainly been follow-up actions that validate that treatment.

Reflect away, for sure.  It's good.

But 'defend the board' is a trap.  It isn't meant to be conversation as it isn't possible.  Strawman by projection, if you will.

I think Sett has the measure of it when he pointed out that the Denners come armed with logical analysis and a refusal to consider play style or wider game context but they are met with dismissive romanticism and a constant rebutal of 'not at my game table' or 'if a rule is broke just fix it'.

Take this debate on haste. The reality is running haste as written with a system shock roll is probably unnecessary and probably nerfs the spell too much. But even the eloquent and reasonable Brendan has been dragged into refending it from a OSR perspective.
Bill's reply that haste doesn't need a SS is more than adequate. Admitting that there is a spell that carries baggage for historical reasons that should be cleared up is all that really needs be said. But instead the denners attack 2e (and previous) for being full of such anomolies and everyone else says 'not at my game table' or 'if a rule is broke just fix it'.

The only way to fix it is to kill everyone and start again

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586266What the hell GC made one claim about 2e and that was Haste fucking kills you and guess what Haste fucking kills you. You're the one claiming victory here and with far less reason. So yeah you guys are the creationists here.

You're arguing this on too strong a pedestal, as has been pointed out to you already.

Haste might kill you, if:

1) You fail the check
2) The check rule is enforced in the first place
3) The GM doesn't hand-waive away the failure by fiat

You might remember, the concept of RAW is a new one.  Prior to internet message boards, a lot of people used custom rules in games and didn't think anything of it.  Like 'Free Parking' money in Monopoly, customizing your game was usually either a neutral or even a good thing to do.

In short, you're viewing 2e rules through a 3.5e lens and are upset that no one else is doing likewise.  But back in that day, this opinion would have been in the minority.  Even today, the 'RAW rules all' concept is only maybe a 50/50 split, from what I've seen.  It varies by game and forum, to be sure, but that 'debate' is very, very, very easy to find.  And there's a reason for that.

Quote from: Bill;586224I would never use a systemshock roll for Haste, so its not a problem.
And...demihumans like their long lifespans.

Every group I have played dnd with in 1e/2e/3e/pathfinder uses haste.

That just proves the groups are stupid.

1st/2nd: Would actually be worth casting if not for the aging/randomly dying thing. Since that is there you don't use it because if you wanted to kill your party you'd cast Fireball, centered on yourself. It'd be about as productive, and far more amusing.

3.5: The only meaningful benefit is extra attack on a full attack. The only things you get to full attack in a 3.5 game is the things that let you full attack them... and they are letting you full attack them because first, they will full attack you, and then you will not survive to full attack back.

If you have Pounce, you also don't need the extra attack to kill anything and if you did you already have it from Whirling Frenzy anyways.

PF: Exactly like 3.5, except that non casters are significantly worse and therefore something that only provides a meaningful benefit to them is also significantly worse.

3rd: Casters spam Haste on themselves so they can double cast because we needed them even stronger right? Haste is not cast on non casters at all.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586227It only lasts 1 min/level.  How do you get all that scouting done in so short at time?  It specially says you can only view 100 feet per level.

Per the example, it would cost five of those levels just to get to the tower, unless you weren't looking at what was in between here and there.

It doesn't seem plausible that you'd learn this much information from this spell alone.

Plus, it's fourth level.  That's a pretty large investment.

As I said, Arcane Eye is actually a bad spell in this example and kind of is in general. There are good spells available though and that is what counts.

Quote from: mcbobbo;586228Right, because those monsters aren't also trying to kill you.

Yes, exactly. You already have to worry about your enemies, why add your allies to the list of things trying to kill you? It already contains the door, the floor, the walls, the ceiling, everything in the room, the room itself...

Seriously, why the hell do you think enemies like cloakers/mimics/gelatinous cubes even exist, if not to make every single thing you encounter a potential source of death?

Quote from: mcbobbo;586231...by some.  Carried too far, others call it 'metagaming'.

Because a spellcaster would not know how spells work and determine what other types of spellcasters are capable of doing?

QuoteWhy did you assume it was a humanoid?  What about a dryad, treant, etc?  Could be a swarm.  Or even a custom monster.

Assume too much at my table, and I'll change it on you, under your feet.

Dick move?  Yeah, maybe, but let's assume like-for-like and move on with the game.

A dryad is basically a non human Druid. There'd also have to be a tree around, which since the place was described as a swamp isn't fucking likely. A treant actually is a tree, so that's even less likely.

Just because you are an asshole that shuts down deductive reasoning and intelligent decision making doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, or that you shouldn't just blindly blunder into whatever scenario is up next.

QuoteYour games assume every PC has a bestiary in his backpack.  Why is this?

Besides, 'dragon' means a lot of things.  From 'drake' to 'dinosaur', depending on the source.  And were it an actual dragon it could range from black to gold to Imperial.  You might not (gasp) even be expected to kill it.

Gee, let me think...

Party fights dragon.

Dragon one rounds anyone it targets with an attack.

Party is informed they will fight a dragon.

Party expects more of the same.

Also, Knowledge checks, or just making a common sense check that anything large can probably beat the fuck out of you in close combat and since it's a dragon, everywhere is close combat.

The actual color of the dragon does not really matter as that only changes breath weapon type and the minor other abilities... in 3.x the breath weapons are useless, and the other abilities don't become significant until much higher levels.

QuoteMany D&D games don't even include psychic features.  It was a bolt-on/add-on to each edition I've owned.  Not sure about 1st or 4th...

Illithids do not exist in D&D? Really?

QuoteFFS, if you've fought it before then why are you scrying it?  "Yes, Jim, that's still Bill the Barbarian over there, he's still in your party, waiting for you to get done scrying.  Would you like to scry the tavern wench next, or can we get on with the adventure?"

I realize like most here, reading comprehension is not your strong subject. As you are at least attempting to address my points I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.

You fight a creature. It beats the hell out of you in close range but has no ranged ability.
You learn some more of those guys are here.
You expect more of the same.

QuoteIf the party can predict and counter, why can't the GM?  Or rather, may you some day play under a GM that can...

You seem to be making an argument for the argument's sake alone.  It doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny very well.  Maybe this is why people seem to be 'dodging' it from your point of view.

Sure, once the enemies are aware of the party they can start predicting and countering their tactics. This is why good parties don't let them and kill them in the manner I described, whereas bad parties end up dying to the mooks before even learning there are greater threats that they must face.

Of course your idea of predict and counter is "Oh, I'll show you by retroactively changing the encounter!" and not by having the enemies there do stuff within the world to alter circumstances in their favor.

My idea of predict and counter is "Oh, you're using that powerful healing item to spam Heal in front of the dragon?" *disarm* You are now fighting a self healing dragon. Enjoy.

QuoteHonestly, your bad party example sounds like a lot more fun to play than to spend thirty minutes of my real life time waiting for the cleric to get done stealing the limelight.

So your idea of a good time is sailing into an unknown situation, getting caught in a death trap, then slowly being killed off without doing much of anything or even knowing what all you were supposed to do or could have done here?

That's nice and all, but the rest of us like being successful and not monster food.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586234Some posters feel this way. I dont personally care if peope know about older editions or not. I questioned whether you had played because we have had a number of people posting criticisms of 1E and 2E but who have stated they are not familiar with the rules and haven't played. I jumped the gun on asking that in this case, and I admit as much.

Regarding autism or aspergers insults I have consistently said I dislike them. I dont think most peopple who throw the words around are trying to be malicious but I believe for people living with autism or who have autistic family members that kind of name calling is hurtful.

OCD as an insult doesn't bother me quite as much, because I have it myself and was diagnosed at an early age. To me it isn't a big deal and I can see the humor in stuff like monk.

I've long since stopped caring about people saying mean things on the internet regardless of if it's [long chain of mental disorders], fuck you and suck a barrel of cocks, go run in front of a bus...

At the same time, if that's all someone has to say it's safe to just ignore them entirely. In any case you're at least attempting to be reasonable, so that's good.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;586252they have every right to post here if they want. And some of us have made efforts to engage in rational conversations. But there is vitriol on both sides and a lot of my own efforts to be reasonable have been met with mindless insults. This is a two way street. If denners want to be taken seriously, they would do well nt to strut around expecting to be recieved as super geniuses as they insult play styles and posters. We on the other hand would be better off if we read what they had to say and responded intelligently when appropriate (walls of text thiugh will get us nowhere), rather than name call or dismiss. My issue with the denners so far isn't their playstyle (as i said before i ran an optimized 3E campaign for years and had great fun because i adapt to my players), but their dissmisive attitude toward people who play older editions, have different balance / play expectations, or are less concerned about RAW. It is somewhat self defeating to be dismisive of the dener playstyle as well.

The funny thing is that I'm being labeled in the Denner category. And that's another thing. Anyone new to these boards that doesn't agree with the general mentality is a Denner. Even if they don't actually post on the Den or if, like me they do post there but don't really identify with them either.

As for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;586266What the hell GC made one claim about 2e and that was Haste fucking kills you and guess what Haste fucking kills you. You're the one claiming victory here and with far less reason. So yeah you guys are the creationists here.

ahem.

Quote from: meI imagine it's easy to think you're winning when you completely ignore all the actual factual data points that have proven you wrong.

Folks, this is what I was referring to.  If you look to your left you will see the Denner completely ignore things like when GC said:

* 1 HD monsters have +4 or +5 to hit
* you have to kill hundreds of monsters to level up in AD&D
* If you didn't play with the SS rule for haste, that proves you never actually played AD&D
* including in how often a character gets hit in the context of combat survivability was irrelevant and dishonest.

and several others.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272The funny thing is that I'm being labeled in the Denner category. And that's another thing. Anyone new to these boards that doesn't agree with the general mentality is a Denner. Even if they don't actually post on the Den or if, like me they do post there but don't really identify with them either.

As for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

Okay only a certain sort of hyper rationalised pro 3e new poster gets labelled a denner. Frank trollman himself has had an accoutn here for years and oddly most people wouldn't actually think of him as a denner. I am usually a discenting voice on a number of topics but no one woudl call me a denner either.  So yes it is an in exactly applied title but it only applies to a subset of those who do not agree with the prevailing group think.

Whilst I agree with some of your analysis I can not agree with your conclusion. Old versions of D&D do rely on luck to a degree but there are ways of adding to your odds and roleplaying in a world where things are more dangerous and possibly 'real' is more of a challenge rather than less. You can play low level D&D and avoid all combat and still progress for example.

Anyone who has 90% of their characters dying in 1-2 encounters in ANY edition should really evaluate what the hell they are doing, or what the hell the DM is doing.  Seeing as how hundreds of thousands of players managed just fine for decades tells me that it isn't a game design issue.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586257I started a rant about individual players feeling like they need to compete and win against other players.  That had nothing to do with edition or class v class, but a personality defect of an individual.   You can't blame me for them coming in and turning into yet another fvw thread.  Hell, LM even admitted that's what he does, over and over.

Bitch, please.

You made a baiting thread.
People took the bait.
You then tried to act innocent as if baiting wasn't your intention.

Let me guess, you go into biker bars, start shit then get mad and play the victim when you get knocked the fuck out?

I only post in threads relevant to my interests. I don't really care about random systems with 10 players total when you need several in the same group just to play them at all.

Who the fuck do you think you're fooling?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586273ahem.



Folks, this is what I was referring to.  If you look to your left you will see the Denner completely ignore things like when GC said:

* 1 HD monsters have +4 or +5 to hit
* you have to kill hundreds of monsters to level up in AD&D
* If you didn't play with the SS rule for haste, that proves you never actually played AD&D
* including in how often a character gets hit in the context of combat survivability was irrelevant and dishonest.

and several others.

I reiterate: Who the fuck do you think you're fooling?

What I actually said was that enemies you fight at level 1 have +4 or +5 to hit, and then I later pointed out those are the typical numbers and you actually can hit +10 or even +15. I didn't say anything about HD, but every example I was thinking of also had 1 HD.
Level 1 enemies give about 40 XP each, you need 2,000ish to level and XP is split 4 ways. Oh Mighty Master of Math, explain to us how 10 * 200 does not equal 2,000 and how two hundred is not hundreds, plural, and when you're done with that why don't you call hundreds of thousands a greater number than millions!
System shock rules are near the beginning of the book. It's a good metric to telling if anyone even knows and understands the rules. Whether they use those rules, or ignore them because it's not convenient while bitching about dirty rotten powergamers ignoring rules that are also not convenient is irrelevant.
There is no such thing as half a hit, or a quarter hit, or any other such nonsense. It either hits you or it does not hit you.

So in a situation in which creature A has 100% accuracy, 10 damage, and 20 HP, and creature B has 50% accuracy, 20 damage, and 10 HP and B goes first here is the correct sequence of events:

B takes an action. 50% chance A dies, 50% chance he misses and A lives.
A takes an action. 100% chance B dies, but as there is only a 50% chance A survived long enough to get a turn the result is:

50% A wins.
50% B wins.

If you are a pants on head retard like Sacro, you think it goes like this:

B takes an action. He always does 10 damage, A never dies.
A takes an action. B dies.

100% A wins.
0% B wins.

If you are a pants on head retard like Sacro, you deliberately misinterpret the deliberately very simplified example to mean something it doesn't, or make claims about it that aren't true such as it being "1st level" when this example was deliberately made level and system agnostic specifically to counter sperglords like him. And yes I am deliberately using that word as an insult. He has no grasp of subtlety or context. That's a classic tell.

If you aren't, you realize the point is that weighted averages are intellectually dishonest and that this example does an excellent job of demonstrating how.

Not only is he wrong, but he continues to post the same wrong things after being shown my multiple people how and why it was wrong to begin with.


Like I said, like arguing with someone who thinks evolution is a myth, or at this point, like those people who think dinosaurs were a government plant by liberals and never existed.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272*snip*

As for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

Seriously? You never played with a competent dm?

I have gmd and played in more 1e/2e games than I can remember, and NEVER did 90 percent of the characters die in 1-2 sessions. 1 death in 10-20 sessions...maybe.

You were a victim of a gm that was either a novice, a sadist, or an idiot.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272The funny thing is that I'm being labeled in the Denner category. And that's another thing. Anyone new to these boards that doesn't agree with the general mentality is a Denner. Even if they don't actually post on the Den or if, like me they do post there but don't really identify with them either.

Jibba answered this pretty well so I wont go into any detail.

QuoteAs for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

That is fair. You should play what you like. It is when you insist anyone who likes older editions is an idiot or wrong that I take issue. If you don't like AD&D for any reason, then that is fine by me.

Also it isn't as black and white here as it seems. Many of us play AD&D but also play new games or even new editions of D&D. In my case I played 3E for years and only went back to 2E about a year and half or two years ago. I had played 2E from its release to the late 90s but picked up 3e when it came out. When 3.5 came out I bought all the books as well. During that period I ran Ravenloft d20 and my own homebrew setting. When 4E was released, i wasnt impressed and left in search of other things. i had always played other games aside from D&D fairly regularly but really started to shift to stuff like Savage Worlds and my own system. Then I decided to run Ravenloft 2E because I am a fan of the setting and had some of my old 2E ravenloft material. Immediately I noticed it offered a style of play that had been missing in all of my 3E ravenloft games (whenever i ran ravenloft 3e it never felt quite right to me). So i shifted back to 2E for my D&D fix but continued to play other modern games. Most of the time I do not play D&D anymore. At the moement i am in an every other week 1E campaign run by bill, and am prepping a 2E game for my cousin and her friends, but usually I am running Servants of Gaius (or one of our other network games) playing savage worlds or participating in our sunday one shots of new systems.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272That just proves the groups are stupid.

If, and only if, there is any reasonable expectation of death.  You are aware of this position, but you keep behaving like you aren't.

Quote from: Mr. GC;5862721st/2nd: Would actually be worth casting if not for the aging/randomly dying thing. Since that is there you don't use it because if you wanted to kill your party you'd cast Fireball, centered on yourself. It'd be about as productive, and far more amusing.

This might be true in 2nd, if you played it like 3rd.  But almost certainly isn't in 1st due to the only RAW support being a FAQ entry about the changes from 1st to 2nd.

You're arguing just to argue, as evidenced by your unwillingness to adapt to even the slightest point of view change.  Try it some time.  It won't kill you, and might earn you some friends.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Seriously, why the hell do you think enemies like cloakers/mimics/gelatinous cubes even exist, if not to make every single thing you encounter a potential source of death?

You get that I'm okay with this, right?  It is a game of danger, and death is a part of that.  It's the entire point of combat, for example.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Because a spellcaster would not know how spells work and determine what other types of spellcasters are capable of doing?

You clearly know enough about gaming to understand the context, and I'm not going to justify this intellectual dishonesty with a response.  Sorry.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272A dryad is basically a non human Druid. There'd also have to be a tree around, which since the place was described as a swamp isn't fucking likely. A treant actually is a tree, so that's even less likely.

Likely is a factor that should be viewed from your character's eyes.  Not your own.

You've been making a lot of arguments based on intellectual superiority.  Let's put that to the test.  Click this link and tell me how long it takes you to determine whether or not a swamp actually has trees in it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=swamp&tbm=isch

When you're done, I think you owe some folks an apology.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Just because you are an asshole that shuts down deductive reasoning and intelligent decision making doesn't mean it isn't a good idea, or that you shouldn't just blindly blunder into whatever scenario is up next.

You just argued that swamps do not contain trees, and I'm the asshole?  I think you're getting carried away.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272The actual color of the dragon does not really matter as that only changes breath weapon type and the minor other abilities... in 3.x the breath weapons are useless, and the other abilities don't become significant until much higher levels.

Breathe.  Your brain needs more oxygen.  You honestly can't think of a single other factor under the chromatic dragon system that would dictate how the scenario would play out?  I'm going to keep you in suspense on this one, I think.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272I realize like most here, reading comprehension is not your strong subject. As you are at least attempting to address my points I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.

Ehem.

Trees in swamps.

Insult denied.  Please try again.  Or don't, actually.  You're not very good at it, and I'm sure are capable of better post content.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Sure, once the enemies are aware of the party they can start predicting and countering their tactics. This is why good parties don't let them and kill them in the manner I described, whereas bad parties end up dying to the mooks before even learning there are greater threats that they must face.

You're still setting up a double standard where the players use metagame knowledge but the GM does not.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272Of course your idea of predict and counter is "Oh, I'll show you by retroactively changing the encounter!" and not by having the enemies there do stuff within the world to alter circumstances in their favor.

Nope. That's actually what I'd usually do.  I only use the big guns when they're necessary.  Metagame on me, and I metagame on you, because you'll stop as soon as it dawns on you that I'm in the driver's seat.  IME, anyway.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272So your idea of a good time is sailing into an unknown situation, getting caught in a death trap, then slowly being killed off without doing much of anything or even knowing what all you were supposed to do or could have done here?

That's nice and all, but the rest of us like being successful and not monster food.

Yeah, in fact it is.  It's called adventure, and there's risk involved.  Your style of play limits the risks to the point where success is almost assured, and I find that amaturish.  Rather like fishing with dynamite.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272I've long since stopped caring about people saying mean things on the internet regardless of if it's [long chain of mental disorders], fuck you and suck a barrel of cocks, go run in front of a bus...

At the same time, if that's all someone has to say it's safe to just ignore them entirely. In any case you're at least attempting to be reasonable, so that's good.

Again, you just told the guy being nice to you to go fuck off.  And then you'll cry that you're an outsider.

That's anti-social, dude.

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272The funny thing is that I'm being labeled in the Denner category. And that's another thing. Anyone new to these boards that doesn't agree with the general mentality is a Denner. Even if they don't actually post on the Den or if, like me they do post there but don't really identify with them either.

I've caught that label myself from time to time, so I can empathize.  But then again you just told Brendan to fuck off and argued that swamps do not contain trees.  So...

Quote from: Mr. GC;586272As for me, I stopped playing older editions because I eventually realized suicide shuffling was bad design and that actual roleplaying was impossible when 90% of the characters you made would be dead in 1-2 encounters anyways so you pretty much had to treat it like a board game or an arcade game where people are just constantly joining and leaving.

Without fiat, you'd be right.  But once again, in older editions, fiat was in the rulebook.