The Gaming Den

MGuy wrote:That's what I'm saying we shouldn't be doing. This whole CB issue is basically just arguing over whether or not Rule 0 should be used and its not over designing or fixing any of the mechanics. I think another topic should be discussed in this thread like. What to do about Save or Dies. I think there was another thread about it a while back (will check on it after this) about it but I don't think a satisfactory conclusion was was ever reached.

Honestly you're better off just starting up a specific thread based on fixing save or dies, or doing some other targeted 3.X fix.

The problems with fixing 3.5 are numerous, and the first thing before you even start fixing is a needed design goal for the game. Are you trying to make the game less Rocket launcher tag, are you just trying to make all the classes equally powerful? What is your basic balance point?

Most people here are just gonna tell you to use the Tomes, because they're actually a mostly finished set of house rules for 3.5. If you want a fix that's going to go a different direction than the tomes, you need to state that and figure out exactly what you're trying to achieve.

MGuy, save your breath. Arguing against Roy is an exercise in futility.

For the uninformed, the Paizil Fallacy is the argument that facts are just opinions. Roy named it as such because of its prevalence amongst the folks at the Paizo forums.

Example:

Some Dude wrote:Fighters need some way to boost their Will saves. At level X, the fighter has only a Y% chance of succeeding against a [insert save-or-lose spell here]. This means that the fighter has a Z% chance of being out of commission for the entire encounter.

Paizil wrote:I don't think that fighters need a stronger Will save. That's just your opinion, after all.

MGuy wrote:I understand that. And I have made several threads targeting what I was working on at a given time, except for the flight thread which had taken a life of its own from another thread. The problems being numerous however isn't a reason to not look over them and brainstorm solutions. That's what threads like this one are started for. I in fact did not start this thread but I'm trying to steer it back to its original purpose which is to iron out whatever flaws are inherent in the system. I decided this time I post I might as well bring up a balance topic. So I brought up Save or Dies which is something I want to approach soon in my own project.

You really should start a new thread with the design goals right at the top. Since honestly I'm not sure exactly what direction you want to go. Do you want something more 4E style? or what?

MGuy wrote:Well in posting that here I am not introducing my design goals cause this isn't my thread. Just stating that the original purpose of this thread being started was balancing 3.x. Whatever goals Anguirus outlined should be the design goals used for this thread.

This thread can't be saved. No one wants to work twords my design goal because they think it makes the game less fun. That's ok, the shit storm was fun to watch.

Anguirus wrote: This thread can't be saved. No one wants to work twords my design goal because they think it makes the game less fun. That's ok, the shit storm was fun to watch.

I don´t think your design goals are even possible to implement outside a boardgame environment. In a roleplaying game with open ended actions, the late bloomers are going to leave the charge nukers drinking at the bar while they go off and slaughter dogs to build up their rage bar.

In a game with fixed parameters it´s perfectly acceptable to have Conquer and Builder strategies side by side, even on the same team. But it just does not work well in an open ended cooperative storytelling context - the builder factions will just take more turns to fill up narrative deadspace.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:

Anguirus wrote: This thread can't be saved. No one wants to work twords my design goal because they think it makes the game less fun. That's ok, the shit storm was fun to watch.

I don´t think your design goals are even possible to implement outside a boardgame environment. In a roleplaying game with open ended actions, the late bloomers are going to leave the charge nukers drinking at the bar while they go off and slaughter dogs to build up their rage bar.

In a game with fixed parameters it´s perfectly acceptable to have Conquer and Builder strategies side by side, even on the same team. But it just does not work well in an open ended cooperative storytelling context - the builder factions will just take more turns to fill up narrative deadspace.

-Username17

Thank you Frank, this was a well articulated and useful criticism. Now to go think about the line between boardgame and RPG.

Mask_De_H wrote:I'm a little dumbfuck, short and stout!

Fuck you, and suck a barrel of cocks. Also, go play in traffic and do the world a favor. When you've done all that... oh wait, you can't let me know.

Anyways, we've all seen Mguy's design work. To call it laughable is an understatement. Marginally better than 'don't play half the time, but somehow expected to stick around to play the other half' but still well below the viability bar so no one cares.

Roy wrote:

Mask_De_H wrote:I'm a little dumbfuck, short and stout!

Fuck you, and suck a barrel of cocks. Also, go play in traffic and do the world a favor. When you've done all that... oh wait, you can't let me know.

Roy, you seem to have gotten the part where many people on this board are fine with profanity. You still have to work on the part where you put in some content between your insults. If you wish to continue trolling without landing on everyone's ignore list I suggest at least one factoid per post, possible as many as three.

And you seem to have forgotten the part where people are only posting to whine and flail about me (which also includes no facts), therefore factless smiting is entirely appropriate.

You know, kinda like you.

Which makes it all the more ironic that you're accusing me of trolling.

Roy wrote:You know, kinda like you.

Which makes it all the more ironic that you're accusing me of trolling.

I guess I was a little too subtle. Let me try again:
I know you are capable of posting useful content. I know you are smart. Yet 90% of your posts consist entirely of regurgitated memes, with next to no actual content.

- It is tiring, because those memes are only funny in moderation.
- It is pompous, because half of your posts are a variation on "back to smiting x". It is damn hard to do that on a message board, and random insults certainly don't qualify.
- It is a damn waste, because you are obviously capable of more.

If you had a profanity laden post filled with tons of examples it would be useful. Some people would still complain, but as I said, most people here are fine with profanity and insults, as long as content goes along with it.

If your "smiting" would actually contain facts and better yet precise facts about those you would smite are in the wrong the term would still be silly, but at least you would be right (and again contribute something useful).

If, after conclusively proven wrong, you acknowledged being wrong, or at least subsequently stopped parading that wrong opinion at every opportunity people might bother listening to you. As is it seems you care far more about winning the argument than for truth, going as far as to flat-out lie or changing the topic.

In short: I am damn sure you are smart. I am damn sure you could contribute if you wanted to. Yet you seem to prefer flinging and wallowing in shit to having a useful discussion (and the term is already stretched on this board). And that's a shame.