"For starters, knights are too weak . . ."

[Mr. GC]

In more words then. Since being on this board a number of people have shown that they do not believe that logically high level threats (like wizards or demons) would use their powers effectively. When people state how these threats can use their powers effectively the people from THIS forum are quick to either claim that it should be nerfed (and actively state that they will nerf it whenever they see it happening), posit highly unlikely situations, or challenge "denners" to thunderdome quit then complain about how the abilities were used.

I could go on to show how the "denners" are pretty much represented by the guy who knows how to play chess in the strip but I'm sure that it would fall upon deaf ears.

In either case, how is this a topic for discussion and not just another "Lol dem denners" threads?

It is not of course. Now it doesn't even go that far. They just tap the fuck out the moment it's even suggested they might have to prove what they say or people take their bait and don't let them bitch out, run and hide behind OHT like the worthless bitches they are, and avoid any examples of actual play while claiming to be all about actual play. They also go "Lol dem denners", then when people fight back it's OMG SITE DISRUPTION.

Even if you ignore all precedent and look at this thread in a vacuum, it is as irrelevant as they are. If they're trying some knight = fighter analog, it fails because fighter = pawn. Only useful in large numbers, as a minor distraction, or as a trade in for a real chess piece. Chess analogies in D&D in general fail because you can have 1/8th your "team" alive and still score a total victory, whereas any sane person would conclude a D&D fight in which only one man left standing is a loss even if that one guy is on their side. If they aren't trying that, they aren't making any point at all... which is more likely, given the source.

TL;DR: Worthless people are worthless players and make worthless characters while raging about those that are not worthless and insist everyone be as worthless as them. Why the fuck are we talking about this?

[StormBringer]

Now theorycraft and optimization hard and no one masters it overnight.

I'm sure it's even harder when you suck at maths as hard as you and your cohort.

"Experience isn't important" is the eternal battlecry of those who have no experience but want to be taken seriously anyway.  There's a reason doctors/surgeons practice on cadavers before they start working on people, and pilots aren't given a passenger jet to fly based on their written test scores.  And it's usually people who are just barely in their late teens yelling at the sky how unfair this is.

Often, people figure it out by the time they are in their early 20s, when reality has smacked them in the face a couple of times and it slowly dawns on them that this experience thing isn't just 'The Man' holding them back.  It used to be called 'paying your dues'.  Now it's called 'late 30s man-child finally gets a dose of reality'.

[Mr. GC]

I'm sure it's even harder when you suck at maths as hard as you and your cohort.

Oh, you mean like hit on a 16 or better = 20%?

Or how about 50% chance of 20 damage = 0% chance to kill a 20 HP target in one hit?

Oh wait, that was you dumbass.

"Experience isn't important" is the eternal battlecry of those who have no experience but want to be taken seriously anyway.  There's a reason doctors/surgeons practice on cadavers before they start working on people, and pilots aren't given a passenger jet to fly based on their written test scores.  And it's usually people who are just barely in their late teens yelling at the sky how unfair this is.

Often, people figure it out by the time they are in their early 20s, when reality has smacked them in the face a couple of times and it slowly dawns on them that this experience thing isn't just 'The Man' holding them back.  It used to be called 'paying your dues'.  Now it's called 'late 30s man-child finally gets a dose of reality'.

Says the person who fails at both theory and practice.

And cohort? Bitch please. I've forgotten more about D&D than you knew... and probably about as much as he knows.

Come at me Ironybringer.

[StormBringer]

TL;DR: Worthless people are worthless players and make worthless characters while raging about those that are not worthless and insist everyone be as worthless as them. Why the fuck are we talking about this?

Because you are the worthless fuck you just described.  Not once have you provided any evidence of your wildly and obviously incorrect conclusions.  You won't even come up with a page number when pressed.  While touting the supreme importance of RAW, you go well outside of it for a 20yr old one line explanation, and don't even read that correctly.  A simple term of internet jargon utterly eludes you, and somehow it is impossible to simply look something up before employing the phrase.  Even worse, you insist your ignorance is the correct meaning.

In other words, we are talking about this in the hopes that it might dawn on you how utterly clueless you are, that you might shut up for a while and learn instead of jabbering, and possibly do even an iota of research before spouting easily countered nonsense.

But of course, it won't happen.  
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.  ~Bertrand Russell"

And there is a psychological underpinning to Mr Russell's observation, although the original paper is difficult to find these days.

[StormBringer]

Oh, you mean like hit on a 16 or better = 20%?

I mentioned that one hits 30% of the time on a 15 or better.  I used odd numbers for a reason.  Let's see you find the post of mine where I used an even number as an example.

Or how about 50% chance of 20 damage = 0% chance to kill a 20 HP target in one hit?

Again, you are so sadly poor at maths, you have no idea what you are even trying to relate.

Oh wait, that was you dumbass.

And I assume you have a link for your assessment that 'weighted averages are intellectually dishonest'?

And cohort? Bitch please. I've forgotten more about D&D than you knew... and probably about as much as he knows.

Clearly.  You can't even figure out what page number your mistaken ideas might have come from.  You can primp and preen all over the stage as much as you want, but it's really not the rest of us that come off looking poorly.

Again:  "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.  ~Bertrand Russell"

Come at me Ironybringer.

You do realize that devoid of context, that isn't really an insult, and it only appears that you simply put words together to give an appearance of wit, don't you?

[Lord Mistborn]

GC your words are wasted on Ironybringer you've seen how he operates. He declared himself eternal master of logic 3 threads ago despite repeatedly being wrong. He exists in his own private reality where there is no reaching him. Heck he actually had the temerity to bring his idiocy to TGD for a while until the stomping he was getting was enough to drive off even him.

[Mr. GC]

A simple term of internet jargon utterly eludes you

(In response to Come at me Ironybringer) You do realize that devoid of context, that isn't really an insult, and it only appears that you simply put words together to give an appearance of wit, don't you?

Ironybringer does it again!

Because you are the worthless fuck you just described.

What I have done:

Illustrate an example of actual play and how it contrasts effective and ineffective approaches and parties.
Rofflestomp the irrelevant attempt to dismiss my claim when asking if I have played older editions even though that wasn't even what we were talking about.
Beat down bad players.

What you have done:

Attempt to defend the undefendable.
Lie.
Fuck up math.

Survey says... you fail.

[StormBringer]

GC your words are wasted on Ironybringer you've seen how he operates. He declared himself master of logic 3 threads ago despite repeatedly being wrong. He exists in his own private reality  there is no reaching him. Heck he actually had the temerity to bring his idiocy to TGD for a while until the stomping he was getting was enough to drive off even him.

Your version of reality both enlightens and refreshes us.

[Mr. GC]

GC your words are wasted on Ironybringer you've seen how he operates. He declared himself eternal master of logic 3 threads ago despite repeatedly being wrong. He exists in his own private reality where there is no reaching him. Heck he actually had the temerity to bring his idiocy to TGD for a while until the stomping he was getting was enough to drive off even him.

Oh, I know that. There was never any doubt he is impervious to logic and reason. I only engage him at all for 1: Damage control. 2: Lols.

[StormBringer]

Ironybringer does it again!

This makes no sense whatsoever.  You do understand what 'irony' is, and why it needs context, right?

What I have done:

Illustrate an example of actual play and how it contrasts effective and ineffective approaches and parties.
Rofflestomp the irrelevant attempt to dismiss my claim when asking if I have played older editions even though that wasn't even what we were talking about.
Beat down bad players.

What you have done:

Attempt to defend the undefendable.
Lie.
Fuck up math.

Survey says... you fail.

A summary from the previously linked article:

• Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers,  will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to  objective criteria.
• Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive  skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers  to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone  else's.
• Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent  peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of  social comparison information. In particular, because of their  difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals  will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of  others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.
• The incompetent can gain insight about their shortcomings, but this  comes (paradoxically) by making them more competent, thus providing them  the metacognitive skills necessary to be able to realize that they have  performed poorly.

[Mr. GC]

This makes no sense whatsoever.  You do understand what 'irony' is, and why it needs context, right?

Sure I do. Which is why when someone says Come at me (name) it's an obvious play on Come at me bro. This is a simple term of internet jargon, and it is totally eluding you.

So when I then turn around and say Ironybringer does it again, that's the sound of an autistic little bitch getting pwned by reading comprehension.

Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.

You mean like Stormbringer, Master of Logic?

Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else's.

So would this be like continuously missing very obvious points, or like you thinking I have no idea what I am talking about, or...?

Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.

So would this be like you thinking you are a good player and a good person despite all evidence suggesting the contrary?

The incompetent can gain insight about their shortcomings, but this comes (paradoxically) by making them more competent, thus providing them the metacognitive skills necessary to be able to realize that they have performed poorly.

And this is why you refuse to improve. The truth burns. Burn bitch, burn.

[StormBringer]

Sure I do. Which is why when someone says Come at me (name) it's an obvious play on Come at me bro. This is a simple term of internet jargon, and it is totally eluding you.

No, I got that, it's just dumb.  The point is, 'irony' doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

You mean like Stormbringer, Master of Logic?

I didn't make that claim, nor do I now.  On the other hand, your cohort... sorry, I mean 'group'... seems to think they have the absolute lock on it.  In fact, you have repeatedly claimed to have superior knowledge and structure, but have failed to demonstrate even the basics of 'discussion' or 'argumentation'.

So would this be like continuously missing very obvious points, or like you thinking I have no idea what I am talking about, or...?

I don't think you have no idea what you are talking about, you demonstrate this on a continual basis.  For example, you say you forgot more about D&D than the rest of us know, then make a claim that haste requires a system shock roll by RAW.  The rules are actually vague about it, so you had to find a throw-away one liner from a two decade old archived article detailing some of the changes from 1e to 2e.  But nothing else, like even a Sage Advice article that claims the same thing.  While those articles are notoriously unreliable, it would at least be something one of the game designers would have written, rather than a marketing or PR flack jotted down, perhaps from a second hand memo on the subject.

But here's why I believe you don't know what 'irony' is.  While demanding adherence to RAW under just about any circumstance, and fetishizing the RAW itself, once you are challenged on your perceptions, you find yourself ranging far afield of RAW to supply even the weakest of evidence to support your contention.  I mean, there is a decent argument to be made for both sides; Brendon and Benoist both made one.  And you couldn't even recognize the merits of either of those or find some way to support those arguments, let alone devise and construct one of your own.

So would this be like you thinking you are a good player and a good person despite all evidence suggesting the contrary?

You have provided no evidence to support any contention you have ever made here.  I am pretty sure you would be unable to provide evidence regarding this contention as well, even if it existed.

I will give you a chance, though, as kind of a freebie; no having to research on your part.  I ran Castle Amber as a PbP that went for 922 posts.  One could reasonably conclude that makes for a pretty successful session.  You are welcome to start up your own PbP thread and see if you can top 921 responses.

And this is why you refuse to improve. The truth burns. Burn bitch, burn.

I figured when you tried to explain your rationale for 'no u' in your first post or two, it rang pretty hollow.  This is further evidence of that.

[Mr. GC]

Stormbringer, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Also, 900 posts? I have one with over 9,000. I also have a face to face game, as those tend to be far more successful than PbP. Those are just what is currently active.

Now go sit in the corner son. Mine's bigger.

[StormBringer]

Stormbringer, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Neither is 'Unsupported Positive Assertions'.

Also, 900 posts? I have one with over 9,000. I also have a face to face game, as those tend to be far more successful than PbP. Those are just what is currently active.

You have a PbP thread with 9,000 posts?

Now go sit in the corner son. Mine's bigger.

As I mentioned, Lord Mistborn's unadulterated admiration is misplaced.

Here, I will throw you an easy one: provide just one link that supports your claim that weighted averages are intellectually dishonest.  I mean, you had to read that somewhere, right?

[Doctor Jest]

I only ever dabbled in chess (yeah, and if it weren't for RPGs I'd have been a grand master, you bet) but it always seemed to me like knights were pretty awesome: shuffling around sideways and attacking other pieces that couldn't touch them. And I loved the knight fork tactic.

I generally open with my Knights against novice players. I can usually decimate half their back line before they force me to open open up my back rank.