The Gaming Den

I'll make either a bard or a Complete Psionicist, depending on how things look when I get home from work tonight.

EDIT: If I recall, Dark Sun characters automatically start at level 3.

DSMatticus wrote:STR: 9
INT: 5
WIS: 10
DEX: 11
CON: 10
CHA: 4

The greatest thing about 3d6 roll in order is that, released from the burden of caring about your character or the game, you can have True Fun. I play a fighter, because it takes the least amount of additional work. I really don't give a fuck about attempting to contribute, because I am borderline-retarded incompetent meatshield #1. Most of my enjoyment will come from finding creative ways to misunderstand the party's plans and get other PC's (like those who rolled well) killed, as well as using my abysmal social graces and stupidity to commit potentially fatal faux pas (for the other party members, I mean) in every social encounter. Now, some people might think I'm just being vindictive and trying to sabotage the game because I'm being asked to play an extra in a bond film, but those people don't know how to play D&D - it's a little thing called roleplaying.

Perfect, just grab some tuxedo platemail and rap your way to victory.

Okay, the LP thread is up. Everyone make your characters, first four posted are the first four used...and don't worry, I have a feeling we'll be needing more soon.

virgil wrote:I'll make either a bard or a Complete Psionicist, depending on how things look when I get home from work tonight.

EDIT: If I recall, Dark Sun characters automatically start at level 3.

Darksun also uses 4d4+4, and not 3d6 in order, so that doesn't seem to work at all.

I meant to suggest that various character options from Dark Sun were available if you had those books, not that you'd be using Dark Sun start-up rules.

RobbyPants wrote:

shadzar wrote:when did i say only roll the stats once?

i said the other was added, but didnt say that i recall it was anything other than 3d6 in order.

the thread isnt new so i dont recall every post, but i dont see anywhere i said only roll 6 dice. the roll methods from 1e DMG were brought up before you brought them up.

So you are saying that "Roll 3d6 in order" allows for re-rolls (six at a time), until you get the numbers you want? So, this is functionally identical to picking whatever numbers you want, other than the amount of time it takes to get those numbers?

when i first referenced the scores and rolling method i didnt mention elf or dwarf as a class, so this means BD&D wasnt what i was using.

i also didnt mention "fighting-men" so i wasnt talking about OD&D then huh?

i DID mention:

they couldn't play a paladin, ranger or bard

these are 1st edition classes, this edition uses the 3d6 in order rolling method, and 4 alternatives of it.

i am, and have always been talking about 1st edition.

i have no idea where in the fuck with those details anyone that knew a damn thing about D&D could have thought anything else, especially as often as these things are discussed, even by some of the very people that have been in this thread, on THESE forums.

so you tell me what those methods are for 3d6 in order?

1. 3d6 in order, keep what you get the first time.

this is the one everyone has been using in this thread, so is the ONLY one people have been talking about? well evryone replying to this thrad has fucked up then huh?

[*]Method II is 3d6 in order (this had disputes but was sometimes treated as the 2e Method II)
[*]Method III also uses 3d6 in order
[*]Method IV does too.

the only one in the 1e PHB that doesnt do 3d6 in order is Method I which uses:
4d6 in order, drop the lowest die for each score.

so anything that isnt Method I in the DMG is what this thread is about. that is what is was started about and what i was asking about. thus the title of the thread "3d6 in order".

2nd edition has the following 3d6 in order methods:
[*]I (3d6 once in order)
[*]II (3d6 twice, chose the best [subjective to the roller] in order)

these also apply to 3d6 in order.

4~5 rolling methods across the 2 editions. (the OD&D way is in both 1e and 2e)

this is what i have been talking about the whole damn time.

so when people complain about 3d6 in order, it seems they are only using the OD&D method, the unnumbered method from 1e, and Method I from 2e? they aren't complaining about the other forms of 3d6 in order at all, only "3d6 once in order"?

shadzar wrote:
this is what i have been talking about the whole damn time.

so when people complain about 3d6 in order, it seems they are only using the OD&D method, the unnumbered method from 1e, and Method I from 2e? they aren't complaining about the other forms of 3d6 in order at all, only "3d6 once in order"?

No, I'm complaining about any version of 3d6 in order. Hell, I wouldn't really be happy with 12d6 drop the 9 lowest in order... I mean, in all likelihood I wouldn't have many instances where I couldn't play the character I wanted, but since it could happen, I would dislike it.

Whatever rolling (or other generation) method you use, I prefer 'assign as desired'.

It's not the rolling 3d6 that I object to (though it does tend to result in characters I consider largely unsuitable both as a player and a DM) primarily, it is the lack of choice in assigning to reflect the character you want to play.

deaddmwalking wrote:It's not the rolling 3d6 that I object to (though it does tend to result in characters I consider largely unsuitable both as a player and a DM) primarily, it is the lack of choice in assigning to reflect the character you want to play.

6 pages later, i will thus consider this the first real post to address the thread topic?

so you just dont like the RNG and not getting to fuck with the DNA or your characters fetal form?

the ability scores are supposed to reflect what your X race was born with. thus 3rd gives like 675 ability scores bumps as you level in the 654 classes to show training and excercise to augment that natural ability of the character born the the games world.

you just want total control over every nuance of the character even before its conception? so you want to design the world too, the DM isnt allowed to do anything like that since it could affect the ancestry of your character?

where is the line drawn where your actual character begins? do you want total control over the game world, or just back to the grandparents? where? this is a serious question. where do you think YOUR control over YOUR character begins, and where does that character begin as a PC for YOU to play?

shadzar wrote:

deaddmwalking wrote:It's not the rolling 3d6 that I object to (though it does tend to result in characters I consider largely unsuitable both as a player and a DM) primarily, it is the lack of choice in assigning to reflect the character you want to play.

6 pages later, i will thus consider this the first real post to address the thread topic?

so you just dont like the RNG and not getting to fuck with the DNA or your characters fetal form?

the ability scores are supposed to reflect what your X race was born with. thus 3rd gives like 675 ability scores bumps as you level in the 654 classes to show training and excercise to augment that natural ability of the character born the the games world.

you just want total control over every nuance of the character even before its conception? so you want to design the world too, the DM isnt allowed to do anything like that since it could affect the ancestry of your character?

where is the line drawn where your actual character begins? do you want total control over the game world, or just back to the grandparents? where? this is a serious question. where do you think YOUR control over YOUR character begins, and where does that character begin as a PC for YOU to play?

And once again, we see that shadzar seems to equate players having any control over the game at all to the players seizing total control over the campaign and putting the DM out of his job.

shadzar wrote:
where is the line drawn where your actual character begins? do you want total control over the game world, or just back to the grandparents? where? this is a serious question. where do you think YOUR control over YOUR character begins, and where does that character begin as a PC for YOU to play?

Fortunately, between sessions wiping my ass with diamond-toilet-paper, I have friends that I can actually play with. As part of starting a new campaign, we discuss things like 'the world' and what type of campaign we'll play. Part of this discussion will be around what characters are appropriate.

If we're playing a game set in Feudal Japan, the character concepts will reflect that.

Once the conventions and milieu have been determined by general agreement, everyone is free to make a character (including history) that fits. They can create family members, teachers, enemies, friends, acquaintances, and many other setting details. The DM enjoys using these details to help expand the world and make the game more interesting.

Wiseman wrote:
And once again, we see that shadzar seems to equate players having any control over the game at all to the players seizing total control over the campaign and putting the DM out of his job.

I'm pretty convinced at this point that the only reason he'd allow players to choose their race and class is because he thinks the books talk to him and tell him what to do. If they didn't, he'd insist on a random chart, because choice is clearly too much player input.

deaddmwalking wrote:The DM enjoys using these details to help expand the world and make the game more interesting.

and this is why back in 80s people couldnt play together because the vastly different things people wanted. WotC should have bypassed 3rd and jsut made a game with a new name then using the D&D "system" parts they wanted and given that story crap and left D&D alone. or just told people to go play Vampire or another storyteller game.

Wait, Shad, are you getting mad because Dead is cooperating making a story in a cooperative storytelling game?

Actually there was this funny chart in the Robotech RPG book that you could roll on to determine how fat your character was. Best chart ever. Everyone who rolled "Obese" or "Potbelly" would always want to make a new character.

Leress wrote:Wait, Shad, are you getting mad because Dead is cooperating making a story in a cooperative storytelling game?

D&D isnt Vampire nor is it made by White Wolf. they make Storytelling games.

maybe you should read this post to understand what i am saying...

. http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=334706#334706 .

That explains so fucking much. Not the linked post, that is just as stupid now as it was the first time I saw it. But getting that shadzar is against any sort of storytelling happening in RPGs.

I've read that thread when you first put it up, hell I even responded in that thread.

First, D&D isn't one persons story. The authoritative control is spread around between all people, that means NO player has more control than another. Now it is said that a DM is a player, and this may be where confusion begins, but the DM is more than just a player, he is a referee. Yes everyone knows he msut do more work to create things or adjudicate rules, and some people feel that since there are some bad DMs, that all msut be bad, but those outliers should be ignored. If the case is that many DMs are truly that bad, then they should not be allowed to DM. These are things that have been said over and over so they are not really the point. D&D requires a DM.

So once again why are you getting mad at Dead for cooperating to make the game enjoyable for the group?

Leress wrote:I've read that thread when you first put it up, hell I even responded in that thread.

First, D&D isn't one persons story. The authoritative control is spread around between all people, that means NO player has more control than another. Now it is said that a DM is a player, and this may be where confusion begins, but the DM is more than just a player, he is a referee. Yes everyone knows he msut do more work to create things or adjudicate rules, and some people feel that since there are some bad DMs, that all msut be bad, but those outliers should be ignored. If the case is that many DMs are truly that bad, then they should not be allowed to DM. These are things that have been said over and over so they are not really the point. D&D requires a DM.

So once again why are you getting mad at Dead for cooperating to make the game enjoyable for the group?

1. this thread was a week again, so not exactly sure what you are saying i did to DDMW... maybe if you quote what you are talking about now, i can follow.

2. IIRC, this had something to do with background control or something? hell i really dont know what you were saying, i have had a busy week and would have to read all 7 page of this thread to remember what was going on. blame the govt shutdown that has stolen my memory ability to know what i was discussing exactly a week ago in order to pull context from your two post back to then.

Why even respond to my post if you don't know what I was talking about even though the conversion is on this very page?

Leress wrote:Why even respond to my post if you don't know what I was talking about even though the conversion is on this very page?

because i was addressing your post, in which you for some unknown reason have the delusion that D&D is a storytelling game.

without knowing what point you are addressing, i cannot correct your problem further than showing you ONE of the errors in your thinking.

shadzar wrote:

Leress wrote:Why even respond to my post if you don't know what I was talking about even though the conversion is on this very page?

because i was addressing your post, in which you for some unknown reason have the delusion that D&D is a storytelling game.

without knowing what point you are addressing, i cannot correct your problem further than showing you ONE of the errors in your thinking.

Okay, I will start from the beginning.

Part 1:
Put in blocks for ease and post size.

shadzar wrote:

deaddmwalking wrote:It's not the rolling 3d6 that I object to (though it does tend to result in characters I consider largely unsuitable both as a player and a DM) primarily, it is the lack of choice in assigning to reflect the character you want to play.

6 pages later, i will thus consider this the first real post to address the thread topic?

so you just dont like the RNG and not getting to fuck with the DNA or your characters fetal form?

the ability scores are supposed to reflect what your X race was born with. thus 3rd gives like 675 ability scores bumps as you level in the 654 classes to show training and excercise to augment that natural ability of the character born the the games world.

you just want total control over every nuance of the character even before its conception? so you want to design the world too, the DM isnt allowed to do anything like that since it could affect the ancestry of your character?

where is the line drawn where your actual character begins? do you want total control over the game world, or just back to the grandparents? where? this is a serious question. where do you think YOUR control over YOUR character begins, and where does that character begin as a PC for YOU to play?

Short version: Dead tells Shad why he doesn't like 3d6. Shad does the Slippery Slope Fallacy and says that by not liking one method of character generation that wants to take all control away from the DM.

Part 2
For Sanity

deaddmwalking wrote:

shadzar wrote:
where is the line drawn where your actual character begins? do you want total control over the game world, or just back to the grandparents? where? this is a serious question. where do you think YOUR control over YOUR character begins, and where does that character begin as a PC for YOU to play?

Fortunately, between sessions wiping my ass with diamond-toilet-paper, I have friends that I can actually play with. As part of starting a new campaign, we discuss things like 'the world' and what type of campaign we'll play. Part of this discussion will be around what characters are appropriate.

If we're playing a game set in Feudal Japan, the character concepts will reflect that.

Once the conventions and milieu have been determined by general agreement, everyone is free to make a character (including history) that fits. They can create family members, teachers, enemies, friends, acquaintances, and many other setting details. The DM enjoys using these details to help expand the world and make the game more interesting.

shadzar wrote:

deaddmwalking wrote:The DM enjoys using these details to help expand the world and make the game more interesting.

and this is why back in 80s people couldnt play together because the vastly different things people wanted. WotC should have bypassed 3rd and jsut made a game with a new name then using the D&D "system" parts they wanted and given that story crap and left D&D alone. or just told people to go play Vampire or another storyteller game.

TLDR: Shad gets mad at Dead for cooperating with the DM and fellow players even though in his grand thread about what Dnd is:

First, D&D isn't one persons story. The authoritative control is spread around between all people, that means NO player has more control than another. Now it is said that a DM is a player, and this may be where confusion begins, but the DM is more than just a player, he is a referee. Yes everyone knows he msut do more work to create things or adjudicate rules, and some people feel that since there are some bad DMs, that all msut be bad, but those outliers should be ignored. If the case is that many DMs are truly that bad, then they should not be allowed to DM. These are things that have been said over and over so they are not really the point. D&D requires a DM.

Which looks like Shad is getting mad at Dead for playing DnD the way that Shad says it should be played.

I point out my confusion by calling it a cooperative story telling game and forget that the definition here is different then the one Shad uses so I changed my phrasing to point out why is Shad getting mad at Dead for not being a disruptive player and working with the others and DM to make a more enjoyable game.

Careful Leress. When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you...

phlapjackage wrote:Careful Leress. When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you...

Sometimes the abyss is a puddle with a black circle painted on the bottom.

Leress wrote:I point out my confusion by calling it a cooperative story telling game and forget that the definition here is different then the one Shad uses so I changed my phrasing to point out why is Shad getting mad at Dead for not being a disruptive player and working with the others and DM to make a more enjoyable game.

but the thing is in his "cooperating" DDMW is always talking about ME, ME, ME, MY CHARACTER, MY CHARACTER.... "thus where does his character begin to become his?" when does the player take control of the character? at birth, since it had to exist prior to the game or there is a newborn PC that gestated with the ability scores and now has to wait until adventuring age in-game time, for the player to play it?

thus why i pointed out in the other thread, but people failed to read, your character is your connection to the world, it shouldnt be your entire world of D&D, thus making sucj great focus on your character you are jsut writing your own mini novella about that character, and have lost sight of the game itself.

i think i am back on track now.

but really when does the character become the player's? it had to be born, unless some DM forced backstory or DM agreed upon backstory allows magical creation of the PCs as the first d6 drops. then they have no connection to ANYTHING in the world, as they have never lived in it before.

hell, that could probably use a thread of its own to question when does the PC become the player's and under his control, as opposed to just being "commoner #56168 with potential".

First, I don't know why you put cooperating in quotes. I'm pretty sure working together with DM and other players is the very definition of that word.

Second, you are arguing semantics about when a character becomes the players. The stats that a character has are the ones that character has when the player stats playing. Unless you want to do some Fallout 3 character creation.

thus why i pointed out in the other thread, but people failed to read, your character is your connection to the world, it shouldnt be your entire world of D&D, thus making sucj great focus on your character you are jsut writing your own mini novella about that character, and have lost sight of the game itself.

That's why Dead's character had relatives and friends, to make a deeper connection to the created world that his/her group created.

So once again why in the nine hells are you getting mad at Dead, for doing the things that you yourself have said as playing D and D the "right way"?