BEMCI D&D: Little point in being a Fighter

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:22 pm

No I am indeed saying what AMIB just pointed out. Even if I was indeed saying your version of it (in A) it would still be true because there are people people DO think like that.

Side Note: Attacking my character instead of my argument is not a good argument for anything. You saying I'm a roletard (whatever that means) and then presenting lofty evidence (As I didn't say Rogues couldn't be good at combat and I gave up months ago on those classes I was making) from the past that has no bearing on what I'm currently stating just prevents you from ever seeing any sense behind my words. And If you're not gonna talk about the words I actually post then there really is no need for you to respond to it.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:43 pm

MGuy wrote:So I think a better way to put his statement/intent is to say that is: :It doesn't matter to fans of the Cleveland browns or Kansas city chiefs that the teams are terrible and have one Superbowl win in history between them. It just doesn't matter, as long as you play NFL football you will always have fans"

Sounds better than what I said so...yeah.

I just didn't want to go with the old cliche: It is not whether you win or lose, but [whether you are having fun playing the game]. (sicced from "how you play the game")

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:14 pm

Attacking your character instead of your argument?

You don't have an argument. You said "Some people enjoy their characters being weak ass bitches, and they have more fun that way."

That's not an argument. That's just a statement. It's also true in the sense that those some people are other roletards.

That doesn't mean you aren't a roletard. You are agreeing with Shad that what matters is how people feel about the character, and so it doesn't matter if it's a commoner or a literal animated piece of shit.

Thinking that and saying that on an RPG design board is the literal definition of a roletard.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:15 pm

Regardless of how you design an RPG that sentiment is true. That was my argument and the whole reason I said anything was because another poster cast it a retarded statement.

You making unrelated attacks on my character for absolutely no reason despite knowing that the statement is true is childish and pathetic. Moreover knowing the statement is true and calling me retarded for acknowledging that it happens is retarded.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:18 am

You didn't just acknowledge that some people believe that. You explicitly agreed with Shadzar who said:

An idiot making statements that are not true wrote:You can run "the numbers" on many things, but those numbers will not give you anything. Some things just cannot be quantitatively analyzed.

The question comes down to the same thing always. How well the group works together. You can have a group of ALL fighters perform better in a game than a groups of all wizards, and not just because of higher HP totals.

So yes, you are wrong. It may be true that some people believe the stupid thing, but you didn't just say people believe the stupid thing, you agreed with the person saying the stupid thing.

Some people believe that the Holocaust never occurred.

Those people are retarded.

And anyone who agrees with them about the Holocaust is retarded.

The fact that you specficially agreed about a certain stupid thing makes you that specific type of retard, IE a roletard. This is not an attack on you instead of your argument. Your "Argument" is that you agree with shad. That argument is stupid and wrong. It is a roleplay not rollplay argument.

Calling you a roletard is exactly equivalent to linking to every role vs roll argument ever made here on TGD. Because there is no one who hasn't had that argument like 400 times.

The last time we had that argument before Shadzar's "2e is the best because nothing can be objectively measured" shitfest was when you were torn apart for being a roletard in your class design.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:42 am

/sigh. Now you're telling me what my argument was despite me posting it. I did not agree with that post of shads. If you read what happened:

Shad posted that. Souran put his statement into a football context. Shad responded with something else. I read it and edited the statement saying that if the now edited statement is what he meant then I agree with that. I even spelled out what I believed in my post. I actually think you avoided actually quoting my post because its easier for you to lie to yourself about what I meant by not looking over the words.

In either case I'm not making a role vs roll argument. I was making the argument about what people do not the way it should be. Stop being a liar.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 12:42 am

Shadazar, generally here we take the presumption of screen time and equally contributing to the group. There are many caveats and ands and whens to this statement, but it's not a point of contention.

If a class or package out of the book is demonstrably 'better' than another, and the book does not note this, it is a detriment to play.

This does not mean you can't have fun. This mean having fun becomes more difficult. Having potholes that an inexperienced player can fall into is not a good addition to a game unless the game is 'make fun of the newbie'.

And Kaelik, you're not even arguing about the same thing that he was. Insulting people doesn't help the argument at all.

-Crissa

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 1:19 am

MGuy wrote:While in terms of game design having a functionally worse character is bad, it often times might not matter depending on the person or the group. ... people have been playing them for years despite the evidence of this and it at times work. This happens to the point where fans will angrily reject suggestions that make the fighter more powerful.

I edited out the part where you said "I agree with Shadzar."

Because apparently, you, like everyone else here, have no idea what anyone else says, so you just say stupid things like:

"I agree with Shadzar as long as he isn't saying what he explicitly said, but actually means what I think."

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:45 am

Thank you for actually quoting my post this time. However I notice that there is no attached debunking of what I said so assuming you're saying I'm "roletarded" for posting the bold parts. I have to ask what part of the bolded statement do you disagree with? The fact that it might not matter depending on the person/group or that at times it works out?

I readily assume you're not going to actually attack either of those statements because there is heavy evidence that in fact that shit does happen and it works out for the people in question. See any board like Paizo, WotC, and GitP for examples. And if you ARE saying that shit doesn't happen then we have nothing to discuss because we don't live in the same reality.

Edit: I also might point out that above Shad seems to agree that my sentiment is what he was trying to say.

Red_Rob · Post by **Red_Rob** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:39 pm

Kaelik wrote:
MGuy wrote:While in terms of game design having a functionally worse character is bad, it often times might not matter depending on the person or the group. ... people have been playing them for years despite the evidence of this and it at times work. This happens to the point where fans will angrily reject suggestions that make the fighter more powerful.
I edited out the part where you said "I agree with Shadzar."

Because apparently, you, like everyone else here, have no idea what anyone else says, so you just say stupid things like:

"I agree with Shadzar as long as he isn't saying what he explicitly said, but actually means what I think."

Reading the quote, I see Mguy saying that groups will make up for the fact that a given character may be weaker because they want everyone to have fun. And that at times a weak character can still have a powerful effect in a given session (i.e. the one story where the party loses their weapons and the monk runs the show).

Then he says this causes some fans to say things like "The fighter is fine". The context suggests he feels these people are wrong.

MGuy is not saying the fighter is fine. He has never said the fighter is fine. And he has definitely not even gone near ROLL VS ROLE. Kaelik, at this point you are coming across as trying to strawman MGuy into an argument he hasn't made.

Shadzars original point was that it doesn't matter how unsuccessful something is, some people will like it. Now, he was using this as a reason that substandard classes are fine, because he's Shadzar, but the point is still true and agreeing with it is not Roletarding. Frank even made the same point in ROW: "Some people really want to be a gray skinned dude with shark’s teeth, and they’ll play whatever game mechanics are given to them."

tl;dr Kaelik, your Nerd Rage is misdirected. Pick on Shadzar, its easier.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 4:57 am

"Some people really want to be a gray skinned dude with shark’s teeth, and they’ll play whatever game mechanics are given to them."

This heavily applies to newer players. They don't know that certain options are worse than others. They may ask for more limited options, but usually because they know that making non-standard characters gets punished by the game.

Being able to ask a person who has never played before, what they want to play, with the additional message of: you can seriously be almost anything. A Genie adventurer is like, level 9 or 10, that's doable. If you strip their Wishes ability until level 11, that's fine. Most games can't support an idea like that, and new and interesting characters can often help fuel new stories.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:52 am

What are some good RPG board games for PC that are not HeroQuest?

HeroQuest doesn't have enough mechanics for me to be interested in, so...

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:56 am

Crissa wrote:Shadazar, generally here we take the presumption of screen time and equally contributing to the group. There are many caveats and ands and whens to this statement, but it's not a point of contention.

If a class or package out of the book is demonstrably 'better' than another, and the book does not note this, it is a detriment to play.

This does not mean you can't have fun. This mean having fun becomes more difficult. Having potholes that an inexperienced player can fall into is not a good addition to a game unless the game is 'make fun of the newbie'.

And Kaelik, you're not even arguing about the same thing that he was. Insulting people doesn't help the argument at all.

-Crissa

The problem is, if I remember my quote and original post. The stats offer no more or less "screen time". The best stats will offer you no more or less "screen time" than energy you are willing to devote to your character and the game itself, no matter what class you play. You could be uber-shy-guy in 3.x with CoDzilla, and get no screen time at all, because you don't speak up. Theoretical control over the game session, becomes meaningless when you realize the game is not played in a numerical vacuum. The game is played by people that cannot be quantified.

The amount of screen time can not even be figured out except for arbitrarily by using the numbers. This is all theory, and nothing can be fixed if a problem exists with theory. Y2K was a theory, and mathematically proven, but what became of that? No planes fell from the sky, no ships sank, no trains wrecked.

1 child dying in an accident is a tragedy, but 100 dying is just a statistic. That is how number work with humans, sadly as it is.

So you have to have more than just numbers to prove there is a problem with the class in relation to screen time. If nobody wants to play, that isn't about screen time, but attitude. Having the wrong attitude cannot be the fault of the game, only the players.

It doesn't mean other things might not show in crunching the numbers, but the screen time will never show, unless someone is building a net-deck character/party.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 am

Shad: Making something that works out when played regularly is the ideal. People who are shy or people looking for something different are specific cases who need things worked out on a more private level between the people involved in that group. Its better to design something that fits for 100 people instead of worrying about the 1 it doesn't fit for.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:23 pm

shadzar wrote:The problem is, if I remember my quote and original post. The stats offer no more or less "screen time". The best stats will offer you no more or less "screen time" than energy you are willing to devote to your character and the game itself, no matter what class you play. You could be uber-shy-guy in 3.x with CoDzilla, and get no screen time at all, because you don't speak up. Theoretical control over the game session, becomes meaningless when you realize the game is not played in a numerical vacuum. The game is played by people that cannot be quantified.

The amount of screen time can not even be figured out except for arbitrarily by using the numbers.

Actually, yes, screen time can be tied to numbers. Screen time isn't just you talking to the king. It's you doing anything at all. So when the party comes up to a stuck door, it's going to be the effective character that gets to open it. Basically, any time the numbers are involved, the superior characters will, by definition, get more screen time. Or, at least they'll get more screen time while succeeding, while the inferior characters will spend more of their screen time failing.

About the only thing you have on your side here is completely non-numerical interactions, like buying a beer, solving a puzzle not involving Skill checks, or thinking of tactics. Other than that, inferior characters either get less screen time, or they get less relevant screen time. It will look something like this:

Friend: So, how was D&D last night?

Player 1: Great! I climbed a 50 foot rope, jumped over a chasm, and killed a bunch of orcs.

Player 2: Meh. I fell of a 50 foor rope three times, damn near died when I didn't clear the chasm, and then killed two orcs.

So, don't say they get the same screen time. It's dishonest.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:34 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
shadzar wrote:The problem is, if I remember my quote and original post. The stats offer no more or less "screen time". The best stats will offer you no more or less "screen time" than energy you are willing to devote to your character and the game itself, no matter what class you play. You could be uber-shy-guy in 3.x with CoDzilla, and get no screen time at all, because you don't speak up. Theoretical control over the game session, becomes meaningless when you realize the game is not played in a numerical vacuum. The game is played by people that cannot be quantified.

The amount of screen time can not even be figured out except for arbitrarily by using the numbers.
Actually, yes, screen time can be tied to numbers. Screen time isn't just you talking to the king. It's you doing anything at all. So when the party comes up to a stuck door, it's going to be the effective character that gets to open it.

You are falling into the trap of the cleric is a walking med-kit.

You are looking at the game where no door should be locked or stuck, because the rogue will always pick the lock, or the fighter will always bash the door. So save time and never lock any door.

The problem is, not all problems can be overcome by the same solution.

Is the rogue always picking door locks? Why? That would be a party problem, that nobody else tries anything. That is a problem with players in a class-based system, they cannot think outside the classes.

It doesn't matter who finally opens it. What matters is who tries to. What if your rogue isn't there? You don't make the roge able to pick locks, so that nobody else can try. You make the rogue able to pick locks, so that if everyone else would fail, there is a plan B.

Otherwise you would be saying that if a fighter is the best class with a weapon, then no other class should be using a weapon. Which is pretty dumb Or a wizard is best with magic, so no need for a cleric.

You cannot see how the game will operate in real life by just looking at the numbers. All you can do is offer some things to get people started. That is the problem with looking at a TTRPG like a video game (4th D&D) that has predefined limits. You cannot climb the tree, because the script wasn't written, and there are no animations for climbing a tree. That doesn't work in a TTRPG where there are no such limits of the code.

So the numbers mean very little. It goes back to what can be done in a TTRPG? You can try whatever you want, and never will a rule exist for everything that can be done unless you are making a TTMMO.

So screen time for the fighter will be as much as the fighter player, and the rest of the group allows there to be, not something written in a book in some actuarial tables for the class.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:39 pm

What the hell did any of that have to do with what I said?

Yes, your little contrived scenarios will give everyone screen time if no one rolls dice. Funny. I've never played in a D&D game where people don't roll dice.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:56 pm

So now you mention dice. Were you trying to say earlier that screen time is tied to dice rolls, and who has the most? You only said the person with the most screen time will be the one that is effective at opening the stuck door. Which is a foolish statement to make, because more time could be spent failing to open it, than actually opening it.

Maybe you should define what YOU mean by "screen time".

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:06 pm

Let me requote myself in my first post, and I'll bold the relevant part:

RobbyPants wrote:Basically, any time the numbers are involved, the superior characters will, by definition, get more screen time. Or, at least they'll get more screen time while succeeding, while the inferior characters will spend more of their screen time failing.

Lots of screen time failing is not better than a descent amount of screen time succeeding. Although, if PC A fails often when PC B succeeds, eventually, the party will tell PC A to shut up and sit down to save time.

Red_Rob · Post by **Red_Rob** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:52 pm

shadzar wrote:It doesn't matter who finally opens it. What matters is who tries to. What if your rogue isn't there? You don't make the roge able to pick locks, so that nobody else can try. You make the rogue able to pick locks, so that if everyone else would fail, there is a plan B.

Otherwise you would be saying that if a fighter is the best class with a weapon, then no other class should be using a weapon. Which is pretty dumb Or a wizard is best with magic, so no need for a cleric.

I know this is Shadzar and we expect retardo-nonsense posts as par for the course, but just a minute, you have a class given a super-effective class feature so that it can be a Plan B if everyone else fails???

What

The

FUCK?

I honestly can't imagine how your games run Shadzar. Presumably the cleric only heals people after the Barbarian has tried his home-made healing dance, and the Wizard only casts Identify on a sword after the Rogue has tried every command word in existence on it because hey everyone needs to join in or its not fair

Also, combat is a completely different type of activity. Adding more people who aren't good at fighting still improves your chance of winning the fight. This is not the same for picking locks, casting spells, finding traps, or any of the other things that constitute screen time.

And if you suck at your schtick you can be damn sure you'll feel like a chump when the spotlight is on you and you arse it up.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:40 pm

RobbyPants wrote:Let me requote myself in my first post, and I'll bold the relevant part:

RobbyPants wrote:Basically, any time the numbers are involved, the superior characters will, by definition, get more screen time. Or, at least they'll get more screen time while succeeding, while the inferior characters will spend more of their screen time failing.
Lots of screen time failing is not better than a descent amount of screen time succeeding. Although, if PC A fails often when PC B succeeds, eventually, the party will tell PC A to shut up and sit down to save time.

How many doors do people remember the rogue opening? How many doors did the fighter bash?

The screen time most often comes up after the game. Everyone gets bored while it is another plauyers TURN. Such as it is for a turn based game. You must wait until your turn.

The main thing is everyone gets toi play, and how it is remembered later.

Sure the rogue can pick any lock as it his purpose, but how monotonous does that become.

The game is really all about how YOU play it, not what the books indicate may be the best collection of options.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:51 pm

Yeah, and it sucks if you don't get to play because you're completely and utterly out classed by your party members.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:46 pm

me wrote: What are some good RPG board games for PC that are not HeroQuest?

HeroQuest doesn't have enough mechanics for me to be interested in, so...

angelfromanotherpin · Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:02 pm

I don't think there are that many. Most of the RPG boardgames have never been adapted for PC. If you could tell me your requirements for the boardgame to count as an RPG, I might be able to be more helpful.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:17 pm

Anything that started life as a boardgame or any kind of traditional game other than D&D. Unless it's Introduction to AD&D, then it's okay.