The Gaming Den

Screencapped for posterity, because sooner or later shad will fix the formatting. It's the text equivalent of a raving street preacher:

You need to work on your writing. This is a text only medium, so you should really try to use proper punctuation and grammar. I'll try my best to respond to everything you've asked this one time - but if you won't respect my time enough to make yourself easy to communicate with I will choose not to communicate with you.

shadzar wrote:A: so you ask for the wizard pre-gen when you want to play a wizard, or the fighter pre-gen when you want to play a fighter? what is the problem? is it because the fighter has boobs and you didnt want to play a character with boobs? why isnt the cahracter intersting? you are not able to PLAY interesting character? i still fail to understand your arguement.

It's not about boobs versus non-boobs. And it's not simply mechanics - I won't play a pre-gen in 2nd edition or in 3rd edition. It's not something I care for. But the more mechanics associated with the system, the more distasteful it is.

When I create a character, I like to think about what mechanical choices represent. Every choice helps reinforce the unique perspective of that character. So, if I chose to play a wizard, the pre-gen might have a random assortment of spells that didn't fit my concept - because if I'm playing a wizard I have a concept of what that wizard is. I might be playing a pyromancer, or I might be playing a necromancer; I probably don't want to play a magic missile throwing mage because I've done that and it isn't of much interest to me at the moment. Since each choice reflects something about the character, going through the process of making those choices helps me expand my understanding of the character I'm developing.

shadzar wrote: maybe you think a pre-gen is something other than what is is. you should probably define what you assume a pre-gen is and then we can work from there to see where the problem in communication lies.

A pre-gen is a character that someone else made for me. They've made a series of selections about what the character is like. Mechanical choices represent personality - there's a difference between a Fighter that chooses a sword and shield and a Fighter that chooses a Greatsword. The difference isn't just in the amount of AC and damage - it's in the personality and what that choice says about them. The sword/shield Fighter might be a coward at heart; or maybe he's smarter and has some special tactics that take advantage of the shield - whatever the reason behind those choices there should be a reason. When I make a character, I think about the personality and make mechanical choices that flow naturally from that. This is a process that produces a feedback loop that informs my other decisions.

shadzar wrote: B: so you are telling me there is someway you can roleplay in an interesting fashion any of these things OUTSIDE of their mechanical impact on combat/diplomacy:

STR: 12
CHA: 18
NWP: fire-building
Profession (basket-weaving)
Feat: Sustenance

you think THOSE are more important than knowing you are:
Jack, human fighter, owning one hammer (carried) and one loin cloth (being worn).

which of these two lets you adventure in the game?

I think that both are important. If I learned how to build a fire but I didn't learn how to fish, that says something about my upbringing and background - or at least, it should. Certainly the STR and CHR represent where my natural talents like. As a portrait, Jack isn't very interesting to me. Now, if I know WHY he's wandering around in a loincloth carrying a hammer we might be getting to the point where I'd consider playing him. Was he lost in the wilderness when he was a boy and the only way he survived was mastering fire? Perhaps he learned to tame animals. But then, why doesn't he have any kind of Animal Handling abilities?

Suddenly the pre-gen doesn't fit my concept of the character. I'd be better of with a Ranger. Considering the High CHR, I wouldn't put ranks in skills like Diplomacy (assuming 3.x) so I'd be a naturally likable character that behaves awkwardly around 'civilized' people and makes friends easily with wild beasts.

shadzar wrote: do me a favor, describe how smart INT: 18 is. come on, i am sure EVERYONE wants to hear this. try STR: 18 if you prefer.

I do prefer to discuss Strength. I certainly try to take my character's Intelligence and Wisdom and Charisma into account when I play my character. I know people who always play a character that is just like them in every way (personality, intelligence, etc) but those are judgement calls. But the effects of Strength are pretty concrete. If I have a low strength, I know that I'm going to want to travel light - or if I'm the kind of person that needs to have the contents of a house and kitchen sink that's going to have ramifications if I'm a low-strength character. In the example I mentioned earlier, I would choose relatively low-strength (for a Fighter) but high Dexterity. She'd be weaker and possibly more frail than her father's warriors, but have learned other methods of offsetting those advantages - at least, that's what I have in my mind. I'd prefer a system that lets me translate those concepts into the character - otherwise I'm stuck with a boring or stale character.

shadzar wrote: you know how IN-GAME you show or tell how smart or strong you are. you best the troll in a grappling match, you outwitted the lich. a number serves ZERO purpose within the game world. does your PC run around talking about his STR: 18?

Or you know how much you can lift and carry. Or you know how many languages you can speak. Intelligence and Strength can have impacts on other aspects of the game. I prefer that they do.

shadzar wrote: in what way does having or seeing STR: 18 help convey Jack loves bashing in skulls or cuddling kittens?

By itself, it doesn't say much. But I like to consider a character holistically, so when combined with other attributes (like Animal Empathy) suddenly I know that he gets along with kittens really well. Considering his natural shyness (raised in the wilderness among wild animals) the fact that he's strong becomes interesting - he doesn't know how strong he is. Compared to the bears and elephants he's a weakling. He doesn't use his Strength in an intimidating fashion - he takes it for granted and thinks that everyone is capable of the same feats of Strength that he is. I'm going to expand that concept and make it fit the character - adapting other aspects of the character to support this..

shadzar wrote: the character is the way you play it and the personality you give it. the numbers you dont se in B in no way help you play your character. having no choice in the number given from a pre-gen, in now way let you play Jack any less of the personal and motivation that you want to give him.

I disagree with this on a fundamental level as described above. Attributes impact world-view; world-view is likely to impact stats. While it's not explicit in the rules, presumably STR 18 could represent a massive investment of time as a body-builder (Arnold schwarzenegger) or a naturally freakishly large and strong man (Andre the Giant). You don't think that how you became strong impacts the way you interact with the world? I can't imagine how it wouldn't speak to your character in a very fundamental level.

shadzar wrote: AGAIN, this is the whole damn problem. people arent playing character, they are playing a collection of stats. why even put a name on your character sheet instead of putting Fighter #2kj478fj6k8h if all you are playing is a collection of stats?

And I see it from the diametrically opposite view. If stats and character selections don't describe your character than you might as well play Bob the Fighter I followed by Bob the Fighter II. There's no investment or thought about what makes them special.

shadzar wrote: saying you want Jack the pre-gen or Jack the human fighter you chose but have no numbers for to crush skulls, is in NO way hampered by not getting to chose those number, and by not seeing them.

I don't think I can parse what you're saying here. From my examples above, I'd probably be unlikely to choose 'Jack the generic fighter'. I'd make selections that represent who I've decided the character is and what his background is.

shadzar wrote: im sorry. for some reason you keep inferring pre-gens have some built in motivation for the PC rather than having the player decide how to play it and somehow think to that the B cannot be played because the player has no control over the personality and other such things as the character, and you make it SEEM as those are important to you, but you only continue to worry about the STATS.

I see the two as related. I'm not talking about optimal stats - I'm talking about choices that represent the character's personality. Every choice (even minor ones) speak to someone's personality. Since part of playing D&D is exploring the environment and part of it is exploring the character, I tend to have more of an investment in 'getting into my character's head' than some people do. I'm not going to apologize for that. Nor am I going to expect that everyone play the way I do. But you should at least recognize that caring deeply about the character's personality can be reflected in the character's stats/choices.

In the real world, someone with an MBA that chooses to work on Wall Street represents something very different than a person that chooses to work for a lower salary at a non-profit. Choices reflect your values and priorities. I take the choices of a fictional character I'll be playing seriously and think about what those choices represent.

shadzar wrote: you don't care about the characters personality or motivations, you just want total control over its number to crunch, otherwise you would be perfectly capable to make Jack A and/or Jack B be your own personal character. and to make him interesting or be interested in him.

You've ascribed motives to me without clear basis in fact. If it makes you more comfortable to believe it, you're not going to bother me. I've already wasted enough time responding to you in this level of detail. But from my perspective, if I think a choice conflicts with the personality I have in mind for the character, I will chafe if not allowed to change it.

This is no exaggeration. In a new system that I've never played, I described a character concept and the GM made a character based on that information. I've rejected the idea of playing the character as presented - unintentionally the GM made mechanical selections that impact my understanding of the character's personality in a way I find unacceptable. I still have to review the mechanical information to remake the character. In all honesty, the character as prepared by the GM is probably vastly superior mechanically than anything I could hope to do - but I'm not looking for mechanical advantage - I'm looking for choices that make sense based on the character's personality and reinforce that personality.

shadzar wrote: so again we re back to the game focuses solely on the characters stats, not the adventure game. people ONLY care about their own singular character for their mini-novella, and must have TOTAL control over every little freckle and hair on it. otherwise, they just cant play in the game.

You're back there - all by yourself. That's not where I'm going. You spend a lot of time with your character. Having a character that you understand and respect on some level is important - if you don't it's hard to enjoy the game.

shadzar wrote: Bob wont play Monopoly cause he only wanted to play to be the with the racecar, not to play Monopoly.

In Monopoly, the token doesn't matter because the game plays the same. In Risk, color of your armies doesn't matter because the game plays the same. Some people DO CARE, and I don't have a problem with that. But in D&D, the character absolutely does impact how the game is played.

If you think that the mechanics don't matter, you'll be just as happy playing a 0-level commoner in a party of 15th level adventurers as you would be playing a 15th-level Paladin.

I know that I have a preference.

Mechanics matter; other aspects matter. Ideally the mechanics reinforce the other aspects.

deaddmwalking wrote:A pre-gen is a character that someone else made for me. They've made a series of selections about what the character is like. Mechanical choices represent personality

you said similar int he earlier part, and i am under a storm warning but will go back and read, but this part stuck out i wanted to adress it before power loss.

NO. mechanical choices do NOT represent personality. personality is the choices you make for the character in the way of actions, motivations, goals, etc.

a hammer does not choose whether you build a single chair or a football stadium. YOU do, the hammer is jsut the tool that helps you with assembly.

likewise the mechanics are jsut a tool that helps you with assembling the gameplay. it doesn't dictate your character, nor shape its personality; YOU DO.

i will read this over again after storm.

And I say that choice of weapon matters.

Choosing a kukri says a lot about how you plan on killing someone versus choosing a Greatsword.

If you don't mind everyone knowing that you're planning a murderous rampage, the Greatsword is the more effective weapon - it kills more easily and does more damage.

So if you choose a kukri you're more likely to be a sneaky assassin type. If you choose the greatsword you're more likely to be a straight-up brawler.

Every other mechanical choice - if you think about it enough - offers similar insights into a character's personality and motivations.

A high Strength and a low Intelligence says something very different about a character than a low Strength and a high Intelligence. Weaklings aren't going to be breaking down any doors with brute strength - if they plan on going through doors they have to find other ways; learning to disarm locks or conning people to open it for them - no matter what method they choose it has ramifications for their past experiences.

deaddmwalking wrote:And I say that choice of weapon matters.

and THIS is exactly what i am talking about. there isn't really much point going into the rest when this IS the crux of the matter which this thread is about.

IF all weapons had the same mechanical effect, would you care about the weapon that much? in as many times that has been asked the answer was in the majority, NO people would not care which weapon.

that is the design fault and player concept that the mechanics make a damn and that they need them for their character.

while YOU may not individually be trying ti minmax/munchkin/charop/whatever, the concept has been bred into players with all the tools to "build" a character, and in such people lose sight of the game itself and forget there are OTHER players playing. you may do those as well, i am not sure at this point, but for me you DO put to much emphasis on your precious character concept that deals with the mechanics.

you like many others want a skill-based game rather than a class archetype based game. you want simulationism rather than adventure, or you want a tool to tell your mini novella for your personal pet character. in either case, NONE of those is what D&D is about.

should you want your character to be important to you? yes. do you need every detail to be your choice and under your control? No, this is D&D, it doesn't offer that. does that mean you can't play a character or the game itself if your "wants" are not met? that depends on IF you really like D&D or not.

and it is WANTS, and again a case of the player wants outweighing their needs. do you think OTHER players in your games CARE how you WANT to kill people in the game or the fact that YOU killed whoever and saved the parties ass?

shadzar wrote:

deaddmwalking wrote:And I say that choice of weapon matters.

and THIS is exactly what i am talking about. there isn't really much point going into the rest when this IS the crux of the matter which this thread is about.

IF all weapons had the same mechanical effect, would you care about the weapon that much?

Yes. I would care that much. Killing with a knife is a much more 'intimate' act than killing with a greatsword. If a character prefers to kill with a knife, I think that should speak to the character's personality.

It sounds to me like you think of characters as simple interchangeable tokens. That doesn't work for me.

shadzar wrote: should you want your character to be important to you? yes. do you need every detail to be your choice and under your control? No, this is D&D, it doesn't offer that.

Why not? Why can't it? If you posit for a moment that we're playing in a multitude of infinite primes, then it is a statistical certainty that somewhere, what you conceive exists. Why can't you play that? Why shouldn't you play that?

shadzar wrote: does that mean you can't play a character or the game itself if your "wants" are not met? that depends on IF you really like D&D or not.

I wouldn't play the game if my 'wants' are not met. I 'want' to have fun. There are other options I have for enjoying myself besides an RPG. If the RPG is not meeting my 'wants' then I'll choose an activity that does. Now, trying to be a 20th level character in a first level campaign wouldn't be something I want - but if I want to play a dwarf and the campaign setting supports it, I don't think there's anything wrong with having that want fulfilled - as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the other players.

I'm getting the sense that you think the game is some kind of 'greater being' that requires sacrifice. If you're not 'worshipping' by creating a character and playing, you're doing it wrong..? Me, I care about the game from the perspective of what I'm getting out of it. Part of what I get out of it is the result of what I put into it - enjoying time with my friends and helping them have a good time is also rewarding and not something that I could do if I spent my time with a good book. So there's definitely a collaborative thing that RPGs offer that other forms of entertainment aren't as good at. But yeah - if my wants weren't being met, I wouldn't play.

Now, it won't always fulfill ALL of my wants.

Anyone who says otherwise is kinda crazy.

shadzar wrote: and it is WANTS, and again a case of the player wants outweighing their needs. do you think OTHER players in your games CARE how you WANT to kill people in the game or the fact that YOU killed whoever and saved the parties ass?

Since I play characters and not tokens, I think that motivation matters. If the players need a tank but my character is not a tank, I don't expect that they'll journey with me. That means I have to make a new character who suits the parties needs. That still leaves room for me to come up with something that I find interesting that can fulfill that 'need'. But if I couldn't fulfill the need and have fun at the same time...I wouldn't do it.

Everyone should have fun. Catering to everyone doesn't need to be hard.

The bottom line is that according to Shadazar, D&D is a miniatures wargame called Chainmail. If you want to roleplay a character instead of play a wargame, shadazar is telling you that you are not playing D&D, because D&D is not roleplaying game.

In other news, shadazar is retarded.

no characters arent tokens, but a collection of stats means nothing without motivation and a personality for it. both of those I give to it. this is why i dont play someone else's character or allow anyone to play mine in the event i am not there. a character is an extension of me in SOME direction. i AM that flexible to be able to play anything, else i wouldnt have stories about a githzerai monk in 3.5. didn't enjoy it, but it passed the time and paid for my time in pizza... i just dont put too much stock into such narrow characters. take for example Fuchs and his need and thinking the DM owed him a magic rapier. what if he got polymorphed into something without hands. he still couldn't have that rapier, so could he still play? shit happens AS YOU PLAY THE GAME, so the more detailed you try to "build" for the future, the less involved you are in the game when your plans fuck up.

why not? because D&D isnt GURPs? why do you have to play D&D if you like it so little you want to change it FOR ALL to be something it is not? why cant you jsut play something else that offers what you want instead a heavy simulationist game with infinite character deign options so each freckle has its own magic ability or whatever? Why does D&D have to change from an adventure game, to a mini-novella writing tool? this IS what happened. D&D was turned form a game with adventure as the focus to a game focus on the character build. PLAYERS AT HOME, can do what they want, but the game need not be forced such changes unto all the players so that you MAY play your home game as you wish. it is like the player rights thread on WotC or the cosmology thread here/wotc/enworld/etc, and the wishlsit thread here. AT HOME you can do whatever, but some shit jsut need not be put into the game and forced upon all to have to remove like: feats, WBL, treasure parcels, etc. YOU are free to add that at home, but don't force everyone to have to use it else you end up with Pathfinder and 4th edition.

i have tried asking this before and nobody has been able to answer it, maybe you can in regards to your "wants". Why do you play D&D. if the answer is to pas the time like many others, then jsut get out. you could go jerk-off to pass the time, and nobody will write some rules to sell you on how to do that. if it is for a drinking game, then also jsut leave. you can do other things while drinking, so if your intention is not to PLAY D&D, what you want from it means nothing as you have something else you want to do and sue D&D as an excuse to do it. so WHY do YOU play D&D? what of your wants does it fulfill and what do you NEED from it? i think it was Frank here that said or says "a game is not complete when you have added everything to it you can, but it is complete when you have taken away from it everything it doesn't need." the things the GAME needs is more important than ANY single players need. this is presented in the afterword of 1st ed DMG and i have posted it in twosucks thread on the 2e DMG. the game must be playable by ALL, so which of your PERSONAL needs are in conflict with being able to have the game play for EVERYONE else in the world? or have you considered that your personal game need not be the way everyone else MUST play the game? you understand "at the expense of the other players", but is that just for your table, or do you include ALL the players in the world in that? did you take them into consideration at all? does your needs impede the rest of the world from playing how THEY want because they have to remove things that fit your needs in order to play? D&D CAN fit everyone's needs. the DM is there to make it do jsut that for a group HE agrees with those needs on. the problem is in this thread i am discussing the game design which FAILS since WotC had it and BEFORE when LW was running it into the ground because it includes shit that CANNOT be removed all that easily. a good DM can add EVERYTHING you want if he agrees it is worth his effort and time and the other players at YOUR table agree that is fine, but THE GAME D&D doesn't exactly need that in there for EVERYONE. D&D only needs a platform to let you take fantastical adventures in the environs you choose to visit.

now you jsut make me not even want to discuss RPGs with you when you bring this MMO shit terms into it like 4e did. Sorry Bill S, but a TTRPG is NOT an MMO, it is NOT a basketball game where two teams face off against each other with the same number of players or whatever.... it is and ONLY should be D&D. other people can have those othe things if they want, but they shouldn't be allowed to have it from D&D at the expense of D&D or sacrificing D&D to give it to them. WotC didn't have the balls to call 4th edition something other than D&D, and that is why we are here with DDN because 4th edition isnt D&D to ANYONE enough that was able to keep it alive. it has less players than BD&D does.

Catering to everyone is the DM at the individual tables responsibility, not Wot￠, not T$R. That is the problem that is being failed to be seen. YOUR fun is the responsibility of YOUR DM. D&D will still always be a game about adventures, and you can add whatthefuckever YOUR DM wishes to, but it doesn't mean EVERYONE should have to suffer the shit you want that they don't need.

i think that covered all the things you wrote even though i didnt quote them out. now some more questions.

what edition did you begin with/when?

what is the earliest edition of D&D that you EVER enjoyed playing?

what did *it NOT allow you to do? *(the edition, not some DM you had.)

shadzar wrote:why cant you jsut play something else that offers what you want instead a heavy simulationist game with infinite character deign options

Because D&D does offer what we want.

shadzar wrote:Why does D&D have to change from an adventure game, to a mini-novella writing tool?

Shadazar. Stop being an idiot. No one is talking about a novella writing tool. D&D is not that, and 3.5 is not that, and no one is playing that. If you want anyone to take you seriously you need to actually distinguish what it is you are talking about. No one is talking about fucking novellas.

shadzar wrote:D&D was turned form a game with adventure as the focus to a game focus on the character build.

See this. This might be a valid statement. I don't think it is, but it might be. But it is also not a fucking novella tool. Character building games are not novella writing tools, those things are fucking different.

shadzar wrote:Why do you play D&D. if the answer is to pas the time like many others, then jsut get out. . . . if it is for a drinking game, then also jsut leave.

Again, learn to actually read what people are saying and understand it. What the fuck about what deadDM was said would make you think he plays D&D just to hang out or to drink? Nothing. Literally nothing. You just started with the completely unfounded assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must use D&D as a drinking game and then applied it to someone who wasn't talking about that, and was very specifically talking about shit that is directly contradictory to that.

shadzar wrote:so which of your PERSONAL needs are in conflict with being able to have the game play for EVERYONE else in the world?

Absolutely none of them. Which is why 3e was much more popular and played by more people than 2e.

shadzar wrote:what edition did you begin with/when?

2e.

shadzar wrote:what is the earliest edition of D&D that you EVER enjoyed playing?

This is a stupid question. Anyone can enjoy any shitty game with friends.

shadzar wrote:what did *it NOT allow you to do? *(the edition, not some DM you had.)

It did not allow me to play all sorts of characters that I wanted to play. Hint "Just make up rules and do things" isn't allowing you to play those characters, it is forcing you to not play 2e to play those characters.

Obviously other things that 2e failed at, see THAC0, and the shitty save system, but this is the most directly relevant failure.

Once again, had trouble understanding what shadzar was saying, but I'm in agreement with Kaelik.

For the same reasons (apparently) shadzar won't let someone else play his character and won't play their characters, I won't play a pre-gen. I don't want to play someone else's character - I want to play mine.

I was born in 1979. My first exposure to D&D was 1st edition because that's what my oldest brother had. When I was in junior high I bought all the books for 2nd edition that I could. Throughout junior high and high school I played 2nd edition. I drifted away from D&D in college, but came back to it with the release of 3rd edition (I graduated in 2001).

While I enjoyed 2nd edition at the time, it doesn't appeal to me much anymore. I have issues with 3.x, too, but of the published editions, it's far and away my favorite.

Not only does it allow me to create characters that are meaningfully different from each other (a weakness in earlier editions), it allows for dynamic exploration and conflict resolution like any other edition.

I don't have any objection to some people choosing to play 2nd edition or preferring it. But surely you can see that it leaves out customization elements. And I don't mean in 'every magical freckle' kind of ways - I mean that even if they're really bad, 3.x at least tried to make it possible to play an ogre instead of the standard fantasy races. Not just with DM hand-waving - with real, honest-to-goodness rules.

And I think that the greatest advantage of 3.x is monster/PC transparency. Again, even if things didn't always work out right, there was an effort to standardize lots of things; that standardization continues to be useful to me.

deaddmwalking wrote:Not only does it allow me to create characters that are meaningfully different from each other

you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means. let me fix it for you.

Not only does it allow me to create characters that are mechanically different from each other

this is what i feel you mean to say. and with the pre-gen argument you still miss the point. i am not sure how. a character i have played is not the same as an unplayed character. MY character is something i have put something into; a personality. you seem not to be able to start with a character other than one you have had total control over to do anything with. not even a pre-gen of a wizard if you want to play a wizard. you are incapable of giving a personality to something that is not the EXACT collection of mechanical bonuses you want to have.

To say I choose not to is not to say that I'm incapable of doing so.

But I do think that mechanical differences help extrapolate meaningful differences - the two go hand in hand.

There is a difference between a strong/dumb fighter and a weak/smart fighter.

In 2nd edition, the strong fighter is always better than the dumb fighter. In 3.x the smart character wouldn't be a fighter, but assuming he does, there are other things he can do to make up for his deficiency in strength. He can choose feats like Combat Expertise that allow him to increase his Armor Class so he can fight defensively.

In any case, there is a broader range of tactical considerations if characters are different. Each character can play to their strengths, resulting in different strategies of engagement with the world - that is what I mean by meaningfully different.

If every character plays the same (or every fighter plays the same as every other fighter) than that means there is no meaningful difference between them.

If you can replace Joe the Fighter with John the Fighter and nobody notices the difference then the difference wasn't very meaningful.

Let's all go play RIFTS

deaddmwalking wrote:If you can replace Joe the Fighter with John the Fighter and nobody notices the difference then the difference wasn't very meaningful.

the difference is in HOW YOU play it.

shadzar wrote:

deaddmwalking wrote:If you can replace Joe the Fighter with John the Fighter and nobody notices the difference then the difference wasn't very meaningful.

the difference is in HOW YOU play it.

And I prefer that in 3.x, it encourages you to mechanically represent those differences. If Joe the Fighter used trip attack and John the fighter uses two-handed weapons and Power Attack, you have meaningful differences in their tactics (in my opinion).

Since 2nd edition pretty much just had 'attack' they played the same (with a possible minor difference in AC and dice of damage).

you said that you would care about your weapon in a game where there was no mechanical difference so it was your personal choice of weapon to kill with that was important, now you are moving the goal posts and saying it is only the mechanics of such weapon that matters.

make up your mind!

and you now keep saying YOUR character needs is more important than the needs of the game, as i just mentioned in twosucks thread, that is the problem and you only keep proving it to be so.

D&D doesn't need your "special snowflake" character for it to exist. YOU and YOUR TABLE may add the things that allow YOUr special snowflake character to exist, but it shouldnt force those thing unto everyone.

do you still not understand this?

Frank Trollman, i ask you to explain your concept, if it was you that said it, why the game is complete when you have removed the things that not everyone needs in order to play it.

then maybe people like DMW will understand the difference between what the game needs, and what the multitude of players around the world wants at their different games.

DMW a character only plays the same if you play it the same. i can take a set of stats and play it 200 different ways, even under BD&D. does this fighter go b2b every time? does he use tactics, does he use hit and run or hit and dodge, etc.

a character ONLY ever plays how the player chooses to play it. if all you can see is the mechanics, you probably will be better served with Warhammer than D&D.

shadzar wrote:and you now keep saying YOUR character needs is more important than the needs of the game, as i just mentioned in twosucks thread, that is the problem and you only keep proving it to be so.

No, he has not ever said that. He has said what things he thinks make the game better. There is no indication anywhere that adding those things makes the game worse.

shadzar wrote:D&D doesn't need your "special snowflake" character for it to exist. YOU and YOUR TABLE may add the things that allow YOUr special snowflake character to exist, but it shouldnt force those thing unto everyone.

D&D doesn't need his special snowflake character. But it does need special snowflake characters. That is readily demonstrable because of how many more people started and enjoyed playing it when it added that feature.

People making up their own rules at the table to do anything is harder than not doing that. You can play 3.5 without feats if you want. That is really easy. It is much easier than writing thousands of feats to accommodate people's desire to play different characters.

shadzar wrote:do you still not understand this?

We understand what you are saying. What you are saying is wrong.

Kaelik wrote:

shadzar wrote:D&D doesn't need your "special snowflake" character for it to exist. YOU and YOUR TABLE may add the things that allow YOUR special snowflake character to exist, but it shouldnt force those thing unto everyone.

D&D doesn't need his special snowflake character. But it does need special snowflake characters. That is readily demonstrable because of how many more people started and enjoyed playing it when it added that feature.

i read a Kaylick post, i can tell i am on medication for that fact alone....

you have called out something as fact, NOW PROVE IT!

prove it wasnt marketing, it wasnt a lust for MtG and its company to be seen as the leader in the gaming industry or marketing, the growth of the internet, etc... prove that NONE of those things, AND ONLY that 3.0 had that of which you speak that is the cause of growth of players DUE TO 3,o having them.

if you cannot objectively prove it now, once and for all, then NEVER speak of it again.

i will give you a week to collect your data, and that should be long enough since it has been being spewed and spouted off as such for OVER 10 years, you should only have to collect the proper set of data from all that is out there to prove it.

I've always had trouble understanding shadzar, not only because I put him on Ignore or the fact that he couldn't write a legible paragraph to save his life, but what I've scavenged from this thread has helped me comprehend his infuriatingly retarded point:

When he used to play, they didn't have rules and sat down to listen to the DM telling a story. Nowadays players want an active role in the ongoing events and that's wrong.

I, for the longest time, thought that his problem with 3.x had something to do with illogical rules, bad implementation thereof or even the current gaming generation and shadzar was simply too stupid to formulate it understandably. As it turns out, it was even dumber than that.

Red Archon wrote:I've always had trouble understanding shadzar, not only because I put him on Ignore or the fact that he couldn't write a legible paragraph to save his life, but what I've scavenged from this thread has helped me comprehend his infuriatingly retarded point:

When he used to play, they didn't have rules and sat down to listen to the DM telling a story. Nowadays players want an active role in the ongoing events and that's wrong.

I, for the longest time, thought that his problem with 3.x had something to do with illogical rules, bad implementation thereof or even the current gaming generation and shadzar was simply too stupid to formulate it understandably. As it turns out, it was even dumber than that.

Shadzar is incoherent, because in the other thread (about wishlists) he is saying "wanting to tell stories is bad" and only "playing the game" is good. He is a paragon of confusion.

shadzar wrote:prove it wasnt marketing, it wasnt a lust for MtG and its company to be seen as the leader in the gaming industry or marketing, the growth of the internet, etc... prove that NONE of those things, AND ONLY that 3.0 had that of which you speak that is the cause of growth of players DUE TO 3,o having them.

1) Usually things like bb code for larger text and colors comes after mastery of the shift key. You should learn the advanced art of hitting shift at the beginning of sentences before you start trying to get fancy.

2) So either prove your unfalsifiable theory that the reason more people play 3e than 2e is because of Magic the Gathering Lust wrong or never bring up the objective fact that more people play 3e than 2e and like 3e and then 2e again?

Nope.

I choose option 3, every single time you claim that 2e D&D is a better game than 3e, I will point out that this is fundamentally at odds with the fact that more people like 3e.

Red Archon wrote:When he used to play, they didn't have rules

no, you are jsut an idiot that cant read. probably why you dont understand D&D.

Kaelik wrote:I choose option 3, every single time you claim that 2e D&D is a better game than 3e, I will point out that this is fundamentally at odds with the fact that more people like 3e.

no dumbass. you made a claim "3.x sold better because", so you have to prove your claim. i made NO claim. i only said that your claim could NOT be proven, as such it has NEVER been proven. i made no claim at all, only pointed out things others have said. you cannot in fact prove your claim at all. but the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove it.

so prove the claim you made

demonstrable because of how many more people started and enjoyed playing it when it added that feature

you attribute this one game feature to be the SOLE factor in your claim. i am calling you and your claim out. someone finally prove this shit, or shut the fuck up about it.

infected slut princess wrote:

Red Archon wrote:I've always had trouble understanding shadzar, not only because I put him on Ignore or the fact that he couldn't write a legible paragraph to save his life, but what I've scavenged from this thread has helped me comprehend his infuriatingly retarded point:

When he used to play, they didn't have rules and sat down to listen to the DM telling a story. Nowadays players want an active role in the ongoing events and that's wrong.

I, for the longest time, thought that his problem with 3.x had something to do with illogical rules, bad implementation thereof or even the current gaming generation and shadzar was simply too stupid to formulate it understandably. As it turns out, it was even dumber than that.

Shadzar is incoherent, because in the other thread (about wishlists) he is saying "wanting to tell stories is bad" and only "playing the game" is good. He is a paragon of confusion.

I still maintain that Shadzar's trolling. When he first arrived here, he was grammatical and less rambly. An asshole, but a coherent one.

Go check his earliest posts if you want to form your own opinion.

That he's discarded making himself understandable--when he has proven to be able to do it--is pretty damning there.

I don't bitch at people for replying to him because Shadzar causes a lot of 'collateral wisdom' from all the well-written and well-thought counter-arguments that occur in response to his butthurt bawling that 2e is done and over with, and the world is better for it.

Just be aware: He can be more coherent. he's choosing not to be.

shadzar wrote:

Kaelik wrote:I choose option 3, every single time you claim that 2e D&D is a better game than 3e, I will point out that this is fundamentally at odds with the fact that more people like 3e.

no dumbass. you made a claim "3.x sold better because", so you have to prove your claim. i made NO claim. i only said that your claim could NOT be proven, as such it has NEVER been proven. i made no claim at all, only pointed out things others have said. you cannot in fact prove your claim at all. but the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove it.

so prove the claim you made

Shadzar. Your capacity for bullshit astounds.

You did make a claim that is far less plausible than Kaelik's completely realistic claim.

In the wishlist thread, you made the claim that D&D was killed when people started playing 3e because they wanted to tell stories. Are you going to back up THAT bullshit claim with proof?

Because it is clear to anyone that is not retarded that most people started playing 2e because they also wanted to tell stories like the ones from fantasy books they read.

That's what made 2e a successful game. That's also what made 3e a successful game.

You are a fucking retard.

shadzar wrote:no dumbass. you made a claim "3.x sold better because", so you have to prove your claim. i made NO claim.

No dumbass, you made the claim that the game doesn't need character customization. That claim is false, and quite aside from the fact that you cannot prove that claim, it can be proved false because of the large number of people like deadDM that play the game that has those things and not the game that doesn't because they consider that game to be better.

shadzar wrote:you attribute this one game feature to be the SOLE factor in your claim. i am calling you and your claim out. someone finally prove this shit, or shut the fuck up about it.

No, I claim that all the advancements of 3e, such as removing THAC0, and standardizing levels, and a save system that doesn't suck, and none of that shitty suck now to win later, and none of that, sit in the corner playing Smash Brothers shit, and greater customization of character concepts created a better game that more people want to play.

For evidence I present the facts that more people played 3e than 2e. More people who have played both prefer 3e, and that 3e sold better.

Your theory that actually all the people who stopped playing 2e and instead play 3e did it because of Magic the Gathering Lust is so comically farcical as to be not worth discussing.