# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## 4th Edition Quirks

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Locked

- Print view

556 posts

- Page 14 of 23
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- …
- 23
- Next

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

###

Post by Roy » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:21 pm

> Iron Mongler wrote:It's a classic 'roleplayer, not rollplayer' kind of person. Keep in mind that most of this list is meant to get all different types of players that are normally shunned (such as watchers, actors, slayers, and power gamers) working together.

So basically, they're embracing logical fallacies. Gotcha.

> It's funny that you mention that 'no one is this character' when I know a player in my group is deliberately this kind of person, which just shows that yes, people are different (shouldn't be a surprise). It's a 'so wacky rofl xD' type of player who does stuff that can be funny without being generally disruptive.

Ok. So you're killing things and taking their stuff as a means of employment. Said things tend to resent this. Now here's this dumbfuck actively working at cross purposes to the party. And he's supposed to be trusted and taken along anyways?
You do not get saddled with The Load. Full stop. How's that for character type advice?

> If you have a group of four actors and a powergamer then you're going to need to adjust your game to their needs. What do you think those needs will be? The book wasn't written with the expectation of million-to-one scenarios (just like how the PHB wasn't either, and I'm glad for that), but their guidelines indicate not to let the powergamer outshine the others to a degree that makes them feel incompetent.

Except that when one guy is trying and the others aren't, either the one putting forth actual effort is better, or you have fucking communism where there's no incentive to invest resources since it caters to the LCD. And really, the only way for such a group to work is for the powergamer to pull the load for everyone at once, as otherwise everyone fucking dies. Great advice game.

> Since Dnd isn't a competitive game (another concept this board has trouble with) it doesn't matter if the slayer is 'worse' at the game than the powergamer. This is, yet again, a type of player I know. I'm not even going to comment on the 'smash brothers' line because I have no idea what you mean. Did you know you can combine skill challenges and combat? This isn't even just an obscure article in Dungeon magazine, it mentions this right in the DMG.

First, bullshit. You are in direct competition with Team Monster. If you lose your character dies. Sometimes it's worse than that. As this defines the entire game, it is very much competitive.
Second, the point is that the only difference between slayers and powergamers is that the latter is better at the same thing. That is by definition, not a difference of type. It's a difference of scale. The powergamer is further down the slider.
Third, smash brothers is a common video game. If you are 'going to play smash brothers' in the context of a game that is not smash brothers, it means that game is not involving you, so you're doing something else until you can do stuff again. Encouraging non involvement is a very bad thing, so something that 'makes you go play smash brothers' is also bad.
Skill challenges are untouchable, so I'm not going there.

> So if a writer asks to join your group, you'll tell them to suck your cock? (Incidentally, this is yet -another- type of player that I know personally. The last paragraph just you wrote doesn't make any sense to me. Do you know what they're referring to when they say 'the narrative should win?' It's more of an anti-rules lawyer concept than 'whatever the DM says goes'.

Way to take him out of context again. The issue is with people turning tabletop games into novels. Just writing novels isn't bad - it's not being able to separate drastically fucking different mediums that is.
Anyways, 'the narrative should win' basically translates to 'whatever the DM says goes' so eh.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:22 pm

> Iron Mongler wrote:Slippery slope.

No, not a slippery slope. You claimed that with hybridization, you can represent everyone. I am a "hybrid" of at minimum 5 of the 8 types. So is everyone else I know. That's not a descriptive type, it's an attribute.
Your claim is that by hybridizing instead of insisting someone conform to their type, you can represent everyone. I can do that too. I start by listing every single possible adjective in the english language, and then I say that I have described everyone in the world.

> Iron Mongler wrote:It's a classic 'roleplayer, not rollplayer' kind of person. Keep in mind that most of this list is meant to get all different types of players that are normally shunned (such as watchers, actors, slayers, and power gamers) working together.

So in other words you are classic retard, and you deserve nothing but contempt.

> Iron Mongler wrote:Not everyone else does. Some people just want to jump right in on the action. While people can always appreciate some detail, the explorer is the kind of person who thrives on them. You're also twisting the 'never used to a character's advantage' interpretation to your own liking. They are referring to metagame knowledge and being better than the other players due to rote, which would be retarded.

No, it's not about metagame knowledge. It's very explicitly about character knowledge. It's very explicitly demanding that people who know demons usually have vulnerability to radiance not be allowed to make decisions based on that.
No not everyone appreciates learning. Just like not everyone would be called 'smart' or 'attractive' or 'a jerk' That doesn't mean smart, attractive, or jerk is a person type. It means it's a fucking attribute.

> It's funny that you mention that 'no one is this character' when I know a player in my group is deliberately this kind of person, which just shows that yes, people are different (shouldn't be a surprise). It's a 'so wacky rofl xD' type of player who does stuff that can be funny without being generally disruptive.

It's funny that you think the existence of 4 chan indicates that 'waxky rofl' is a type of player, rather than just something people do when they don't take what they are doing seriously.
It's also funny that you think that instigators aren't generally disruptive, even though they by definition are disruptive, both the actual word instigator, and WotC player type, which is described as disrupting things on purpose.

> This is actually my favorite of the lists on the page, and is the one that fits me. Do you realize how many DM's I've seen (just look at /tg/ if you don't believe me) who STILL hate power gamers? I've been called a munchkin for wanting to play a competent character. There are definitely some power gamers who don't do well RP-wise (I don't think they needed to list that either) but that's why I mention some people can be multiple 'types'.

Yes, there are retards who think that powergaming is bad. We have an entire fucking fallacy that exists solely to decry those people who think that having one attribute, powergaming, prevents you from having other attributes. Just like people who think that smart people can't be attractive and attractive people can't be smart, you are fucking retarded.
Yes, people can be multiple 'types' Like for example, I have never met anyone more powergamish than me. Equal, sure, greater, no. But I have also never met anyone more strategist than me. Or anyone who cared as much as I do about defeating enemies. Or anyone who cares as much about fulfilling my character motivation. That's half the types.
I am the fucking pinnacle example of half the listed types.
If you are classifying people, you should not be able to demonstrate all possible types with two individuals.
If I am talking about about high school, I should not be able to explain everything with two people.
Well, you got your Jocks, like me. Your Nerds, Like me. Your Popular Kids, like Bob. Your arts kids, like Bob. Your student council types, like Bob. Your different nerd sub cultures, of which I am the most fitting example of each kind. Your different Sports types, cause the baseball kids like me hang out in the cafeteria in the mornings, while the football kids like me are out practicing in the mornings.
Does not work! Part of being one type of person is not being another type. You cannot be a jock and a nerd, not because you can't be smart and play sports (see attrbiutes) but because part of the definition of being a nerd is not playing sports, and part of being a jock is not studying a lot.
But see, when I talk about smart successful talkative, shy lazy stupid. I am not surprised to find that someone meets half those adjectives. Because they are not descriptors of type, merely attribute.

> but their guidelines indicate not to let the powergamer outshine the others to a degree that makes them feel incompetent.

No, it indicates they should not outshine them at fucking all. It really does say that, you are just purposefully ignoring all their advice and replacing it with slightly better advice.

> Since Dnd isn't a competitive game (another concept this board has trouble with) it doesn't matter if the slayer is 'worse' at the game than the powergamer.

Well, actually it does. Because the powergamer is not allowed to be better than the slayer. If he is, then you failed. Because it tells you not to let him be more powerful. But that's not the problem with the type. The problem with the type, is that it's not a different type, it's not even a different attribute. It's like claiming that Chocolate Milk is one type of Milk, and that Chocolate Milk from the same jug mixed in a 3:1 ratio with regular milk is a totally different thing.

> So if a writer asks to join your group, you'll tell them to suck your cock? (Incidentally, this is yet -another- type of player that I know personally. The last paragraph just you wrote doesn't make any sense to me. Do you know what they're referring to when they say 'the narrative should win?' It's more of an anti-rules lawyer concept than 'whatever the DM says goes'.

Only if the Writer is an attractive female. Or Hugh Laurie.
If they are a good writer, they don't fit the storyteller description, because a good writer recognizes that how different characters motivations and abilities interact tells a story, and if you want the story to come out a certain way, you have to change the motivations or abilities. A 'storyteller' is someone who thinks that character motivations are less important then the story. Despite your attempt to deny it, it's right there in the description. It says not just that the narrative should win over mechanics, though it does say that. It explicitly says the narrative should win over character motivations.
A storyteller is someone who demands that my characters motivations change to fit the story that he wants to tell. If I'm playing exalted, I will spend a point of willpower to tell him to go fuck right off. If I am playing D&D, I will just skip to the telling him to fuck right off part.

> You are again exaggerating the point for the sake of your argument (hyperbole, I believe?). This is the type of person who enjoys being a strategist, far moreso than other characters. One player may consider kicking in a door and rushing a bunch of kobolds on the other side, while the thinker has another plan in mind that could make that decidedly easier. And no, not everyone is a tactical genius. That's not a prerequisite to play Dnd. What they want thinkers to avoid with the last two lines is to dictate absolutely fucking everything the others do, and I'm kind of surprised you don't see that yourself.

You are again ignoring what it actually says, because what it actually says is stupid. But yes, it is the type of person who enjoys being a strategist far more then anyone else. Like me. This is one of those things that I am the best example of. This is one of the 4 of 8 attributes that I have a lot of. Strategist is not however, a type of person. Because all strategists are powergamers. And they have to either care about the story or their character motivations to do anything.
Top

Iron Mongler
  Apprentice
  Posts: 51
  Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

###

Post by Iron Mongler » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:46 pm

> So in other words you are classic retard, and you deserve nothing but contempt.

Is that directed towards me, or to 'roleplayers' (I'm guessing the latter)? While I'm not a big fan of 'roleplay, not rollplay' people, they are at least TRYING to engage them.

> First, bullshit. You are in direct competition with Team Monster. If you lose your character dies. Sometimes it's worse than that. As this defines the entire game, it is very much competitive.

While you are up against Team Evil (or Team Morally Grey Neutral or Team Misunderstood Good) I wouldn't consider Dnd competitive, not in the sense I was referring to. I mean in the sense that players shouldn't compete with each other (PvP). Your character dying doesn't even -necessarily- qualify as losing, so long as you go out dramatically. I think we have a problem with defining how you'd 'win' Dnd, which for me involves having fun (which is subjective).

> Second, the point is that the only difference between slayers and powergamers is that the latter is better at the same thing. That is by definition, not a difference of type. It's a difference of scale. The powergamer is further down the slider.

It seems to me that the slayer focuses more on killing stuff regardless of how well they've managed to optimize their character. While it's very similar, they do have their differences.

> Third, smash brothers is a common video game. If you are 'going to play smash brothers' in the context of a game that is not smash brothers, it means that game is not involving you, so you're doing something else until you can do stuff again. Encouraging non involvement is a very bad thing, so something that 'makes you go play smash brothers' is also bad.
> Skill challenges are untouchable, so I'm not going there.

Keep in mind the other reasons why a Watcher even shows up to a game though. They are the definition of 'casual' (as used by /v/, and I'm going to go kill myself later for actually having to use that term) in regards to Dnd. They want to just show up to be part of the fun going on, without really any regards for anything else.
Skill challenges...Your Mileage May Vary. I've had a degree of success when implementing them, but they have to be subtle. Finding out in-character that you're in a skill challenge is a little jarring to say the least.

> Way to take him out of context again. The issue is with people turning tabletop games into novels. Just writing novels isn't bad - it's not being able to separate drastically fucking different mediums that is.

There are people who DO want Dnd to be more 'novel-ish' though. Just look at R.A. Salvatore. As I recall, his entire group helped him with the Drizzt novels.
Last edited by Iron Mongler on Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:06 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:14 pm

> Iron Mongler wrote:Is that directed towards me, or to 'roleplayers' (I'm guessing the latter)?

It was the former. You are absolutely hopeless and a terrible human being for thinking that roleplay and rollplay are two different types of people.
Top

Iron Mongler
  Apprentice
  Posts: 51
  Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

###

Post by Iron Mongler » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:18 pm

> It was the former. You are absolutely hopeless and a terrible human being for thinking that roleplay and rollplay are two different types of people.

You can't honestly tell me you've never met anyone who's been a 'roleplay, don't rollplay' type of person, lol. If you're serious, then I commend you for the excellent ad hominem and trying to spark a fucking flame war with someone trying to be civil.
Last edited by Iron Mongler on Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:52 pm

> Iron Mongler wrote:You can't honestly tell me you've never met anyone who's been a 'roleplay, don't rollplay' type of person, lol.

You can't honestly tell me the existence of someone who likes apples and does not like ginger ale proves that they are mutually exclusive preferences, and that there are apple people and ginger ale people.
Top

Iron Mongler
  Apprentice
  Posts: 51
  Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

###

Post by Iron Mongler » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:58 pm

> Kaelik wrote:

> > Iron Mongler wrote:You can't honestly tell me you've never met anyone who's been a 'roleplay, don't rollplay' type of person, lol.

> You can't honestly tell me the existence of someone who likes apples and does not like ginger ale proves that they are mutually exclusive preferences, and that there are apple people and ginger ale people.

I'm not trying to say they are mutually exclusive preferences, I am saying there are people who think like that. What you are trying to call me is what I hate seeing in people.
Perhaps I got off on the wrong foot with you with my statement. What I'm trying to say is that there are people who value 'roleplay over rollplay' as if they were two different things. I am not one of those people, and while I dislike people like that, the DMG has recommendations on how to cater to folks who DO think like that.
Also given that one of my friends is deathly allergic to apples, I'd say that-:bolt:
Top

Leress
  Prince
  Posts: 2767
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Leress » Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:15 pm

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a section that would explain that "roleplay vs rollplay" is a bad way of thinking instead of trying to accommodate for it? Thinking like that is actually worse since it causes segregation instead of integration.
Last edited by Leress on Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Iron Mongler
  Apprentice
  Posts: 51
  Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

###

Post by Iron Mongler » Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:21 pm

> Wouldn't it make more sense to have a section that would explain that "roleplay vs rollplay" is a bad way of thinking instead of trying to accommodate for it? Thinking like that is actually worse since it causes segregation instead of integration.

I could agree with this. For me, I've always found it far more helpful for the group to work with each other to come up with builds and suggestions, while trying to keep up with goals, motivations, and developing believable backstory.

> Maxus wrote:Geology has massive apathy toward events which take less then three million years to happen or don't wipe out 80% of life on Earth.
> But, on the plus side, we're able to tell you where the oil is.

Top

PhoneLobster
  King
  Posts: 6403
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by PhoneLobster » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:02 pm

> Iron Mongler wrote:You can't honestly tell me you've never met anyone who's been a 'roleplay, don't rollplay' type of person, lol.

I haven't.
I've met people who SAY they are. But all their games involve pointless slaughter to take stuff from monsters and about a million dice rolls.
So Yeah, I haven't met any actual "real roleplayers". Just liars. They don't REALLY play as basket weavers.
-This has been a message about Phone Lobsters Theory of Real Role Players not existing, brought to you by Phone Lobster.
Top

Iron Mongler
  Apprentice
  Posts: 51
  Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

###

Post by Iron Mongler » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:04 pm

> I've met people who SAY they are. But all their games involve pointless slaughter to take stuff from monsters and about a million dice rolls.
> So Yeah, I haven't met any actual "real roleplayers". Just liars. They don't REALLY play as basket weavers.

Damn. I always wanted my Profession: Murdering Hobo to actually lead to good roleplaying experiences.
Last edited by Iron Mongler on Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

###

Post by Roy » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:19 pm

> Iron Mongler wrote:While you are up against Team Evil (or Team Morally Grey Neutral or Team Misunderstood Good) I wouldn't consider Dnd competitive, not in the sense I was referring to. I mean in the sense that players shouldn't compete with each other (PvP). Your character dying doesn't even -necessarily- qualify as losing, so long as you go out dramatically. I think we have a problem with defining how you'd 'win' Dnd, which for me involves having fun (which is subjective).

Your dying stops the fun you are having until such time as your character is returned to life or you replace them with another character. Even if you do want to pull a pussy cop out, the fact death prevents you from playing at all and thus having fun for a time is still a point against you.
Also, you don't have to be competing with the other players for one person dying to be bad. It means whatever you were doing now cannot be done. And if you were so weak that they aren't missing anything, then they were just going in at a disadvantage from the fucking start because they appear to have a larger team than they actually do. So either way, having dead weight on the team is objectively bad. With that term being defined as 'below baseline'. Well, this is 4.0, and the baseline is you pick the right race and the right stats and the right powers as if it were Final Fantasy Fucking Eleven. So you can't even get away with trying to screw around.

> It seems to me that the slayer focuses more on killing stuff regardless of how well they've managed to optimize their character. While it's very similar, they do have their differences.

Like them being too fucking lazy to make themselves actually good at doing that. I've dealt with that type before. It was a game ruiner, because they wanted to auto win with no effort and deliberately ignored advice so as to give them a character strong enough to actually come close to doing those things.

> Keep in mind the other reasons why a Watcher even shows up to a game though. They are the definition of 'casual' (as used by /v/, and I'm going to go kill myself later for actually having to use that term) in regards to Dnd. They want to just show up to be part of the fun going on, without really any regards for anything else.

So a selfish fucker that shouldn't be around you at all, or at least right now. Not. Valid. Full stop.

> Skill challenges...Your Mileage May Vary. I've had a degree of success when implementing them, but they have to be subtle. Finding out in-character that you're in a skill challenge is a little jarring to say the least.

Skill Challenges = either spam dice and You Lose, or spam dice and You Win. Yawn. And you know when you're in those, because this is 4.0. You're either grinding on a MOB, playing Magical Tea Party, or doing a 'Skill Challenge'. Full stop. And since the way they're set up, everyone shuts the fuck up and lets the expert do everything the result is at best they fail, and flail for all the reasons 3.5 skills do. Except now they take much longer to resolve. Because terrible design really needed to be dragged out. Though to be fair, since 4.0 seems to take the stance of 'adding a 0 at the end means 10 times more fun' straight out of Yugioh except applying it to task resolution time instead of hit points that probably was not specifically intended on their part.

> There are people who DO want Dnd to be more 'novel-ish' though. Just look at R.A. Salvatore. As I recall, his entire group helped him with the Drizzt novels.

Funny how the end product only superficially resembles D&D at best, as the system Just Doesn't Fucking Work That Way. Hell, even 4.0 doesn't manage several minute (game time) grinds. Much. Yet apparently that's how the wank novels work every time. Of course I meant novels in general, focusing on issues like railroading bullshit, but if you want to get into D&D novels specifically there is much more Fail to be found. Now granted, a novel where everything just kinda falls over in seconds probably wouldn't sell well. But that's why you make your fantasy world your own, where you can totally make the rules of the world work that way and don't try to ride on D&D's cock. Full stop.

> Iron Mongler wrote:

> > It was the former. You are absolutely hopeless and a terrible human being for thinking that roleplay and rollplay are two different types of people.

> You can't honestly tell me you've never met anyone who's been a 'roleplay, don't rollplay' type of person, lol. If you're serious, then I commend you for the excellent ad hominem and trying to spark a fucking flame war with someone trying to be civil.

What's that phrase? Non sequitor? Or perhaps straw man? Maybe both. Your argument does not address his own, but nice try.
It making you a terrible person to think that two not exclusive things are mutually exclusive in no way precludes the existence of people making exactly that error. In fact it would be rather silly to accuse someone of being a horrible person for making an error that is not possible for them to make.
In other words, your post = Giant Frog.

> Leress wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense to have a section that would explain that "roleplay vs rollplay" is a bad way of thinking instead of trying to accommodate for it? Thinking like that is actually worse since it causes segregation instead of integration.

Yes. And while they're at it, eliminate the other negative categories like either getting the slayer to learn how to effectively kill things or divert them from doing so, etc.

> Draco_Argentum wrote:

> > Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.

> Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?

> Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.

> Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.

> Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.

Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Top

Roy
  Prince
  Posts: 2772
  Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:53 pm

###

Post by Roy » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:21 pm

> Iron Mongler wrote:

> > I've met people who SAY they are. But all their games involve pointless slaughter to take stuff from monsters and about a million dice rolls.
> > So Yeah, I haven't met any actual "real roleplayers". Just liars. They don't REALLY play as basket weavers.

> Damn. I always wanted my Profession: Murdering Hobo to actually lead to good roleplaying experiences.

Lucky for you, An Adventurer Is You! You get max ranks for free, as a hidden stat.

> Draco_Argentum wrote:

> > Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.

> Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?

> Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.

> Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.

> Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.

Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Top

Iron Mongler
  Apprentice
  Posts: 51
  Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

###

Post by Iron Mongler » Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:42 pm

I am beginning to see your points on the issues you label, but one thing that I don't understand is:

> What's that phrase? Non sequitor? Or perhaps straw man? Maybe both. Your argument does not address his own, but nice try.
> It making you a terrible person to think that two not exclusive things are mutually exclusive in no way precludes the existence of people making exactly that error. In fact it would be rather silly to accuse someone of being a horrible person for making an error that is not possible for them to make.
> In other words, your post = Giant Frog.

Do you mean that people in general never pull the 'rollplaying sucks' term? I don't see how I set up a straw man even, seeing as I just wanted to defend myself against being unjustly called retarded for no reason instead of, you know, Kaelik actually having the intelligence to try to make sense of my earlier point.
Last edited by Iron Mongler on Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Fuchs
  Duke
  Posts: 2446
  Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
  Location: Zürich

###

Post by Fuchs » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:32 pm

Not everyone plays D&D with the assumption that the DM is actively trying to kill off PCs and only minmaxing and good tactics and good rolls can keep them alive. Losing doesn't have to mean dieing.
Some play a much more relaxed game, where PCs do not die unless the player chooses so. (They might get captured, enslaved, routed, humilated, etc., but the character doesn't (perma)die unless the player wants to change PCs.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

Post by Psychic Robot » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:40 pm

That's more difficult in 3e, where you are consistently one save away from death. Though I would prefer to play in such a game because it sounds more fun and less...numerically taxing, I suppose, than a min-maxed game (although I do enjoy a good strategy challenge as much as the next guy).

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

Fuchs
  Duke
  Posts: 2446
  Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 am
  Location: Zürich

###

Post by Fuchs » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:11 am

I play 3.0. I just don't use many of those SoD.
Though by the book death is just a speed bump once you get the spells to get people back from dieing. So, all I really do is skip the "ok, Fred's PC died, Mark's PC revived him, subtract 5K gold, let's go on" step.
Although I also have a contingency adventure for a TPK, so I don't have to act too contrived to avoid death.
Generally, I do not enjoy a game where I have to worry about character death.
Top

PhoneLobster
  King
  Posts: 6403
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by PhoneLobster » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:14 am

> Fuchs wrote:Some play a much more relaxed game

And they are still "roll players" rather than "role players" in every actual objective measure you can find.
They still roll dice to decide the outcomes of stuff.
They still spend the vast majority of their time and energy (if not all of it) focused on killing things and taking their stuff.
Their characters are still combat oriented.
And their decisions are still effected by and largely consist of game mechanical events.
Of course they also engage in actual role play during all that, because everyone does that too, but because the stupid fucking liars that pull the "real role players" routine can't define their way out of a paper bag the categories of "real role player" and "roll player" are basically meaningless.
If pressed the only differentiation it boils down to is that "role players" are themselves and "roll players" are guys they don't like.
Which is to say. "Real Role Players", and to a similar extent "Roll Players" do not exist. And this isn't just a "you can't put people in neat boxes" argument. This is a "Those are extra super STUPID FUCKING BOXES" argument.
That 4E spent a large amount of time and space blabbing on arrogantly and insultingly about various PLAYER stereotypes like "Helper", "Meanie" or whatever the fuck they felt like calling things that week insults me personally and every gamer ever as well.
It was a pile of unrepentant, unhelpful, counterproductive, BULLSHIT.
Top

Iron Mongler
  Apprentice
  Posts: 51
  Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

###

Post by Iron Mongler » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:36 am

> Which is to say. "Real Role Players", and to a similar extent "Roll Players" do not exist. And this isn't just a "you can't put people in neat boxes" argument. This is a "Those are extra super STUPID FUCKING BOXES" argument.

All roleplayers are rollplayers but not all rollplayers are roleplayers. There are people who will not even want to bother RP'ing period (they are far and few between, and you would never actually keep someone like that in a game, but they do exist).

> That 4E spent a large amount of time and space blabbing on arrogantly and insultingly about various PLAYER stereotypes like "Helper", "Meanie" or whatever the fuck they felt like calling things that week insults me personally and every gamer ever as well.
> It was a pile of unrepentant, unhelpful, counterproductive, BULLSHIT.

I disagree for my earlier stated reason - they are guidelines, and should merely be treated as guidelines. As mentioned earlier, an explanation for roll vs. role myths would have been a good addition to the chapter though.

> That's more difficult in 3e, where you are consistently one save away from death. Though I would prefer to play in such a game because it sounds more fun and less...numerically taxing, I suppose, than a min-maxed game (although I do enjoy a good strategy challenge as much as the next guy).

I can go either way. It's refreshing to have a game where everything isn't srs-fucking-business life or death, but I always at least try to optimize myself for the situation within limits of the class I use (such as Rogue).

> Though by the book death is just a speed bump once you get the spells to get people back from dieing. So, all I really do is skip the "ok, Fred's PC died, Mark's PC revived him, subtract 5K gold, let's go on" step.

A 1K speedbump, actually. Revivify from the Spell Compendium is a very delicious spell.

> Maxus wrote:Geology has massive apathy toward events which take less then three million years to happen or don't wipe out 80% of life on Earth.
> But, on the plus side, we're able to tell you where the oil is.

Top

PhoneLobster
  King
  Posts: 6403
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by PhoneLobster » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:11 am

I hesitate to even remotely interact with him, but you know, I think Roy has you pegged, and handled. I'll let him continue to insult you and your STUPID position on "Real Role Playaz!", because his responses are the most fitting.
I mean "Hey yeah sure, but what about the people who want to roll dice, but don't care about the outcome and don't want to hear about shit like "your character hits/misses with sword!." Yeah, because they totally fucking exist.
Ass.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:14 am

> Iron Mongler wrote:seeing as I just wanted to defend myself against being unjustly called retarded for no reason instead of, you know, Kaelik actually having the intelligence to try to make sense of my earlier point.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Your original point was that you are a "big believer" in "roleplay vs rollplay" Which a) doesn't actually mean anything at all, thus making you retarded. And b) Demonstrates that you believe roleplay and rollplay are opposing concepts, making you even more retarded.
Therefore, I called you retarded.
If it turns out, you are just incompetent at communication, that's fine. But that doesn't make my early statement about my lack of intelligence.
I'm not going to say, "All jews should be gassed and burned." Then insult someone's intelligence when they call me a Nazi because I meant that Jews are super nice people and that killing them is wrong.
Top

Iron Mongler
  Apprentice
  Posts: 51
  Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:55 pm

###

Post by Iron Mongler » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:14 am

> PhoneLobster wrote:I hesitate to even remotely interact with him, but you know, I think Roy has you pegged, and handled. I'll let him continue to insult you and your STUPID position on "Real Role Playaz!", because his responses are the most fitting.
> I mean "Hey yeah sure, but what about the people who want to roll dice, but don't care about the outcome and don't want to hear about shit like "your character hits/misses with sword!." Yeah, because they totally fucking exist.
> Ass.

'Handle' me? You're fucking retarded, and you're also the load your mother should have swallowed you fat fuck. Get off these boards and stop shitting up legitimate debates like a 4chan troll.
Besides, I'm actually having some fun discussing this with Roy. You're a fucking [EDITED] though, and don't understand my fucking position. I've already said that I don't fucking violate Sune's Law or the Stormwind Fallacy, so just get off my fucking case already.
Ass. LOLOLO TEENAGE INSULTS ARE SO FUNNY!

> What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Your original point was that you are a "big believer" in "roleplay vs rollplay" Which a) doesn't actually mean anything at all, thus making you retarded. And b) Demonstrates that you believe roleplay and rollplay are opposing concepts, making you even more retarded.
> Therefore, I called you retarded.
> If it turns out, you are just incompetent at communication, that's fine. But that doesn't make my early statement about my lack of intelligence.
> I'm not going to say, "All jews should be gassed and burned." Then insult someone's intelligence when they call me a Nazi because I meant that Jews are super nice people and that killing them is wrong.

Strawman strawman strawman. I did not fucking say that. I said the book supports people who think like that. How the fucking fuck many times do I need to explain this? I even said from the start I hate people who think like that. Also, yes, believe it or not, if you call me retarded I am going to insult you back.
You are another load who should have been swallowed if you don't see what I'm talking about, Jesus Christ.
Don't worry though, I'm done with this thread. Celebrate your juvenile victory or whatever you do. It will only prove just how retarded you are.
Nice talking to you though Roy, wouldn't mind doing it again in the future. I'm balancing 4e and 3.5 games rather precariously so it's nice to see the views of both sides for me.
Last edited by Iron Mongler on Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top

PhoneLobster
  King
  Posts: 6403
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by PhoneLobster » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:36 am

Well, there's a babbling chump for you then I suppose.
"Roll Players Exist", "Wait I never Said that", "You can't Deny that Roll Players Exist", "Fuck you for saying I said Roll Players Exist!", "What if people just THINK they exist, we should humor their insanity!", "What the fuck do you mean I'm an idiot?"
Is it the conflicting group mind of he who cannot be named once more rambling around the boards arguing with itself?
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

Post by Psychic Robot » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:39 am

I like this guy already.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

Leress
  Prince
  Posts: 2767
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Leress » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:54 am

Okay, so the main quirk about 4e's "player types" is pretty much like that of the GNS. No one knows what it truly means and uses it to make themeselves smarter than they really are.
Really the DMG should tell you what kind of stories you tell with the system and any adjust that need to be made for one that can be told with the system but are not the main focused on ones. (aka higher magic, and lower magic versions of the same worlds)
It needs stuff in the to help the DM like quick sheets for conditions, what the tags on abilities mean and whatnot. Every time I hear about some needing a reference most have to make their own cards and and look up what stuff still means.

> PR wrote:I like this guy already.

I really like the insult involving preemptive abortion. Not for what it was responding to but the insult itself
Top
Locked

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

556 posts

- Page 14 of 23
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- …
- 23
- Next

Return to “In My Humble Opinion...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS