Oh, I get it now, Fighters /should/ have spells.

[Fuchs]

How do you even resolve combat with a few hundred minions?

I think there are some mass combat resolution tools around too.

[Aryxbez]

How do you even resolve combat with a few hundred minions?

I think there are some mass combat resolution tools around too.

Yeah, Heroes of Battle supplement had some ideas behind mass unit attacks, like Archer volleys to say the least. Otherwise, recall one could consider they copped out Mass Battles simply as displaying the "scenes" that matter in the ongoing battle, and just run everything else as backdrop to the encounters.

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
"Threads" thread links deleted.
[/TGFBS]

[fectin]

Go easy on inciting flamewars. I agree with what you're saying, but IIRC fbmf doesn't appreciate it.

[Aryxbez]

Go easy on inciting flamewars. I agree with what you're saying, but IIRC fbmf doesn't appreciate it.

I don't think my intention was to cause such, although I'd be pretty surprised if my mere ramblings could be the catalyst for such an event. Doesn't seem like my message is all that bad, I thought it spoke pretty standard for the Gaming Den, hell, with less vulgarity in it even. Just sharing my distress towards dumb neckbeards is all, like everyone else, but do pardon if I had displeased the fbmf guys.

Midnight_v I think you need to ease on the assumed drunken postings, they really are looking like stuff posted by Shadzar. I tend to like your posts but they seem to be getting more jumbled mess of thoughts, making it harder for others to understand your points. Hell there's one post of yours I adored enough to snip and reference on rare occasion, I speak of this:

So. . . here's the deal.
At low levels that guy is Lancelot. (1-5)
at Low to mid he's Wolverine (6-10)
at mid to high? Paul Bunyun (11-15)
at High? 16 - 20 He's an alien God, or a dragon, or the Sentry

Although reading back on that post, seems like that's perhaps your posting style, which is fine, just not doing it much justice when it's garbled enough to be compared to Shadzar of all people.

[fectin]

Because I'm too impressed with myself to let it go unnoticed, this:



The shades of night were falling fast,
as through the message board he passed,
a fool with vigor and with vim,
and motto which sustained him:
Ignoratio!

His chin was bare; his beard beneath,
bedraggled as if cheerful wreath,
once full of merry Christmas cheer,
had festered, forgotten, for untold years,
Ignoratio!

In happier games he saw the light,
of well-wrought rules, balanced and tight,
but grumbling grognards urged him on,
and from his lips escaped a groan:
Ignoratio!

"Don't roll fighter," Frank Trollman said.
"A Great Wyrm lingers overhead!
A wizard's needed to fight in the sky!"
Still loud that quarrelsome voice replied:
Ignoratio!

"I'll mount the church-tower; hide inside!
And when that lizard happens by,
jump on him, whilst my army, from below,
fills him with arrows!" (It just goes to show,
Ignoratio!)

A plan, at least, to fell the lizard
(though no plan's needed with a wizard),
Alas fell beastie sees him on the stair,
burns the risers, and traps him there!
Ignoratio!

Oh, curse that evil, agéd genius' guile!
Oh curse the Troll Man's mocking smile!
"It's his fault! Rainman! Somehow I'll prove..
(That's it! I know! I'll use...
Ignoratio!")

The dragon calmly turns about;
the archer army, frightened, routs;
with just one bite, the captain's gone,
leaving grognard all alone.
Ignoratio!

All night long, the city burns.
All night long, the neckbeard yearns
for a warm, mother-like DM,
who'll hide how much he coddles him,
Ignoratio!

But now cold snow is falling fast,
and grognard wishes he had classed
as something with a cold resistance.
Mais non! He's fighter at his own insistence.
Ignoratio!

But now there comes an end at last,
BENOIST is frozen fast!
(His head's still firmly... well, you know)
But hear him yet! He faintly gasps:
Ignoratio!

[Jilocasin]

Brilliant fectin.

So I've only read something around 30 pages of that thread but something that really stuck out at me was when one of the cowboys mentioned a group going into a dungeon and running into a vampire. The anger at someone even possibly crying foul at the double level drain was really weird to me, especially when the next thing he said was that any moron dumb enough to melee a vampire deserves it for their stupidity. Personally I've never had any problem with adventurers knowing the abilities of even weird esoteric monsters just because the players read the monster manual, but I've never found that to be a common sentiment among most MCs and players. Particularly the kind that faps to how awesome their fighter is because ballistae magically appear. There's gotta be some reason other than being a shitty MC that people would throw closet trolls and puzzle monsters at you and insist that you simultaneously know and not know exactly what the monster can do.

[Lokathor]

Amazing.

[Fuchs]

How do you even resolve combat with a few hundred minions?

I think there are some mass combat resolution tools around too.

Yeah, Heroes of Battle supplement had some ideas behind mass unit attacks, like Archer volleys to say the least. Otherwise, recall one could consider they copped out Mass Battles simply as displaying the "scenes" that matter in the ongoing battle, and just run everything else as backdrop to the encounters.

I meant computer-based tools. I remember using one for a mass battle campain once.

[Midnight_v]

Code: Select all

Although reading back on that post, seems like that's perhaps your posting style, which is fine, just not doing it much justice when it's garbled enough to be compared to Shadzar of all people.

Thanks on the one hand, and on the other I have to say I had no idea I was so incomprehensible. Though, I admit to a certain amount of "Stream of Consciouness" writing here, I've never had someone say "I don't understand you" till recently here. I'd change it but I'm honestly not entirely sure what's going wrong, that makes me seem like english is my second language or something. *shrug*.
Still, this isn't so much about me as the idea of what do to with the "guy with the sword". I actually understand it from both sides, because both sides have (somewhat) valid points. Let me specify, NOT the neckbeards, I don't know what those people are really wanting, and It hard for me to read thru page after page of people who I'm not sure are talking about the same game as us "AT ALL".
So, back to the point, "The Swordsman" people want to tell stories undending about this guy. If it wasn't a big deal then we would never have this fight. I'm reminded of a quote:
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children of all people KNOW that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be slain."
I'm doing that from memory so it likely off a bit, but this is the root of many peoples problems with killing the "Fighter". The basic hero story is man with magic sword, kills dragon, marries princess, gets kingdom.
That can honestly, be framed as a fairly low level concept.
Except when we're catogorizing "Kaiju" as a "Dragon" or acknowledge that "Dragon" can basically be a living fighter get driven by a genius too.
So you get people pissed when you say "Yes we're still telling the dragon story" and "No, you're not good enough to play... you never were"

Heres a reference for this problem:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=187259
Fucking Kaiju Dilemma: "FKD"- Cloverfield Monster attacks the city, a good portion of gamers feel like, "Wizards can just cast finger of death on it" those people feel like Fighter as a concept CANNOT beat this threat. The rest of the people feel like: KRATOS. Send in Kratos. (also shadow of the colossus. but still most thing Kratos). Frankly, about half these people say "No, finger of death doesn't work on something like this, even disentergrate would only hit one of its scales". That portion is wrong but I understand the perspective they have and why they have it.

Its silly to say "No" to a concept because of naming conventions but thats kinda what has to be done, it think."
The truth is within the confines of the game world its like this:
"What do I do? I stab things in the face. ...Fine, I'm a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/Master of Black Fire/ Cloud Jumper."
A lot fo the arugments revolve around people not saying "I"m a fighter", also VAH is bad. Though really people don't feel like they're playing VAH when they have fucking cloud jumper powers.
They'll still tell you that they're fighters though, or that they kill shit via swording. Trying to get people to define a character they envison through a lens you define = flawed.
Versimilitude being a diffrent thing to differnt peoples.

[Username17]

Let me specify, NOT the neckbeards, I don't know what those people are really wanting, and It hard for me to read thru page after page of people who I'm not sure are talking about the same game as us "AT ALL".

The neckbeards have a relatively simply platform:

• No High Level Adventures! If something can't be done by a human with a lever, they don't want it to be something that can be done.
• Always Succeed! Conversely, if something could even theoretically be accomplished by a man with a lever in the right place at the right time, they want to succeed at doing that. If they announce that they are going to "the mountains" to "find Osama Bin Laden's cave", they expect to succeed. Hell, their actual example was that they would tell the DM to shove it and walk away from the table if the DM expressed incredulity over basically exactly that action.
• No Rules! This actually flows from the first two points. They view rules of any kind with suspicion, because any ability that had any rules text at all could only allow them to succeed at tasks beyond normal people with sticks or disallow them from succeeding at tasks that are theoretically within the realm of normal people with sticks.

Now, you might notice that that is basically the 4rry argument for why skill challenge rules don't need to work. And well, yes it is. There is a lot more overlap between the OSR and the 4e crowds than either would like to admit. That is also why both groups are fringes of the hobby compared to the 3e players.

The basic hero story is man with magic sword, kills dragon, marries princess, gets kingdom.
That can honestly, be framed as a fairly low level concept.

It's not just that it can be framed as a low level concept, it is a low level concept. The dragons may or may not have a lot of hit points or something, but when you tell it as a story, individual hit points won't be recorded. If you want to check whether you're having a high level adventure or not, explain the adventure without numbers to a non-gamer friend who has no idea what a gnoll or a baatezu is. Then tell them the story of you going through The Sunless Citadel, or some other iconic low-level adventure. If they can't tell the difference, it's a low level adventure.

The Tomb of Horrors is not a high level adventure. Robilar completed it by bribing a tribe of Orcs to follow him and then sent random Orcs one at a time to poke things until all the deadly traps had been isolated. You could pull that shit off as a zero level character if you had a pile of money and spoke Orcish. A high level adventure would be one that you couldn't complete just by poking at things with a ten foot pole.

Which reminds me: "Owns Big Army" is one of the shittiest "high level" abilities that it is possible to imagine. Sure, it does a few things that a peasant with ingenuity and a ten foot pole cannot (it can let you be in two places at once and get kingdoms to take you seriously in negotiations). But the vast majority of tasks you can do with an army are just things you could do yourself with a rope and some time. In short: almost everything you do with "Owns Big Army" are simply low level tasks in shorter time frames. You can send soldiers to check all the warehouses on the docks, but you could jolly well check them yourself as a first level character, it would just take longer.

-Username17

[Orion]

You don't think "Find Osama Bin Laden in the mountains" would be an example task solvable with an army but not by one guy with a stick.

[Username17]

You don't think "Find Osama Bin Laden in the mountains" would be an example task solvable with an army but not by one guy with a stick.

No. While you do in fact send the Army of the United States to the mountains for 10 years only to find out that he has already moved to the suburbs in the real world, it is possible for any one of the guys in your army to find his cave without any special equipment at all. He just needs to happen to go to the right mountain. It's just 1700 kilometers of mountains, there's no reason that the mountain you happened to climb wouldn't be the one with the secret enemy lair in it.

Now of course, if someone made that argument in an actual game, I would be like "Are you fucking kidding me? You're asking to find a needle in a haystack by blind luck, only you have to conduct a major mountain climbing expedition every time you check a single stand of hay!" But several of the neckbeards have announced that it is exactly that kind of attitude that would make them refuse to game with me as DM under any circumstances.

-Username17

[ishy]

The neckbeards have a relatively simply platform:

• No High Level Adventures! If something can't be done by a human with a lever, they don't want it to be something that can be done.
• Always Succeed! Conversely, if something could even theoretically be accomplished by a man with a lever in the right place at the right time, they want to succeed at doing that. If they announce that they are going to "the mountains" to "find Osama Bin Laden's cave", they expect to succeed. Hell, their actual example was that they would tell the DM to shove it and walk away from the table if the DM expressed incredulity over basically exactly that action.

-Username17

The thread was moving too fast for me to read it all (the one you linked to on the other forum that is), but this feels like bullshit to me Frank.
Their points weren't, No High Level or Always Succeed.

They said they'd walk away from the table if you wouldn't allow the fighter to track at all, instead of saying that he'd fail because it was too difficult for an untrained fighter. They specifically mentioned getting an NPC guide to direct them to the lair instead.

[Username17]

The neckbeards have a relatively simply platform:

• No High Level Adventures! If something can't be done by a human with a lever, they don't want it to be something that can be done.
• Always Succeed! Conversely, if something could even theoretically be accomplished by a man with a lever in the right place at the right time, they want to succeed at doing that. If they announce that they are going to "the mountains" to "find Osama Bin Laden's cave", they expect to succeed. Hell, their actual example was that they would tell the DM to shove it and walk away from the table if the DM expressed incredulity over basically exactly that action.

-Username17

The thread was moving too fast for me to read it all (the one you linked to on the other forum that is), but this feels like bullshit to me Frank.
Their points weren't, No High Level or Always Succeed.

They said they'd walk away from the table if you wouldn't allow the fighter to track at all, instead of saying that he'd fail because it was too difficult for an untrained fighter. They specifically mentioned getting an NPC guide to direct them to the lair instead.

Look, the Neckbeards don't make any fucking sense. Consider their tirade about how dying to a vampire because you didn't run away from it was your own damn fault in light of their equally strongly held belief that using metagame knowledge about the abilities and strengths of monsters is cheating. Or their fascinating opinion that wizards using magic to make money and hire soldiers doesn't count somehow, but the Fighter's free soldiers do. None of it makes any fucking sense.

But yes, their point really is that they should always succeed on tasks which are theoretically within the capabilities of a human. It starts with the claim that they should always be "allowed to try" (that is: roll a die against Who the fuck knows! They don't have any relevant abilities!), and beyond that that they should be allowed to "use their creativity" to find a map or an NPC or something who knows the answer.

Which is basically that they should be able to "spend fate points" to hijack the world and declare that there are available maps to Osama Bin Laden's secret cave if they aren't able to just find it outright by picking a mountain at random to go search on foot. But since they are playing a game with actual fate point limits, they want to be able to make these sorts of narrative declarations an unlimited number of times and for free.

It's a deeply nonsensical stance - especially because if asked they also say that DM's words are law, final destination. Essentially, they have quasi-codified DM PITY. That is: the Fighter does not have any fucking abilities and he cannot accomplish any high level task other than stabbing a high level opponent in the face. Therefore, if the Fighter is going to accomplish anything at all, narrative contrivances need to fall on him at regular intervals to squeak him through the adventure. Therefore, they view any lack of such narrative contrivances as a failure on the part of the DM. Rather than a total failure of the ruleset, like everyone else does.

Interestingly: I'm pretty sure that if actually straight up gave the Fighter Narrative Contrivance Points for him to spend on getting to and through adventures, the neckbeards would revolt. They demand narrative contrivances for their Fighters, but they also demand that they get to continue to pretend that they are accomplishing everything on their own without having to rely on outside help. They are like how people in Mississippi receive more than two dollars of federal aid for every one dollar they pay in taxes, but still a majority believe that they are independent.

-Username17

[ishy]

Or their fascinating opinion that wizards using magic to make money and hire soldiers doesn't count somehow, but the Fighter's free soldiers do. None of it makes any fucking sense.

Well the wizard was making it with Major creation which meant it would only exist for a few minutes. It is less useful than real gold.
And the fighter's soldiers aren't actually free, the ability mentioned they would only stay for as long as the fighter could pay them. So I guess the feature is that they show up, and that in most campaigns everyone can hire them.

But yes, their point really is that they should always succeed on tasks which are theoretically within the capabilities of a human. It starts with the claim that they should always be "allowed to try" (that is: roll a die against Who the fuck knows! They don't have any relevant abilities!), and beyond that that they should be allowed to "use their creativity" to find a map or an NPC or something who knows the answer.

A die roll implies a chance of failure to me, though I've never met a DM who would put her players in a situation that they can't succeed in. Because not being able to succeed is just frustrating and boring.
That said in a real campaign there usually are different ways to get to a goal. So yeah there might be npcs who know of the dragons location, and their might be a map, or perhaps the fighter can follow obvious tracks. That is part of creating a situation.

Which is basically that they should be able to "spend fate points" to hijack the world and declare that there are available maps to Osama Bin Laden's secret cave if they aren't able to just find it outright by picking a mountain at random to go search on foot. But since they are playing a game with actual fate point limits, they want to be able to make these sorts of narrative declarations an unlimited number of times and for free.

It's a deeply nonsensical stance - especially because if asked they also say that DM's words are law, final destination. Essentially, they have quasi-codified DM PITY. That is: the Fighter does not have any fucking abilities and he cannot accomplish any high level task other than stabbing a high level opponent in the face. Therefore, if the Fighter is going to accomplish anything at all, narrative contrivances need to fall on him at regular intervals to squeak him through the adventure. Therefore, they view any lack of such narrative contrivances as a failure on the part of the DM. Rather than a total failure of the ruleset, like everyone else does.

You can't include everything in a ruleset. If there is a dragon lair, there will likely be someway that you can find it is there, even if what you do is only follow the dragon after her last rampage.
And the fighter doesn't need to have narrative contrivances to fall on him, because the figher is not alone and in an adventuring party. If she can't solve it, maybe the wizard in the party can.

Interestingly: I'm pretty sure that if actually straight up gave the Fighter Narrative Contrivance Points for him to spend on getting to and through adventures, the neckbeards would revolt. They demand narrative contrivances for their Fighters, but they also demand that they get to continue to pretend that they are accomplishing everything on their own without having to rely on outside help.

-Username17

But they don't want the fighter to succeed every time without outside help(or a potion or magical item). They want the fighter to rely on NPCs or other party members for some things. And they want some bosses to be almost immune to magic so the wizard has to rely on the fighter to kill those things too.


That said, I don't agree with them. I think that party members should all either have no codified out of combat abilities or they should all have codified abilities, and for a ttrpg I prefer MTP + codified abilities (in and out of combat).

[StormBringer]

The neckbeards have a relatively simply platform:
<snipped>

Look, Frank: everyone knows that by merely existing, every other game out there - and especially every other version of D&D - is an affront to 3.x and must be destroyed. And while everyone here likes to OCD all over the rules, you have also been around long enough to remember that there wasn't a screaming match every session over AD&D rules, even when the DM was winging it. I understand the Den likes to call that 'magical tea party', but it worked pretty well for 25years.

Or was it like Ron Edwards said, the people at your table were brain damaged and weren't actually enjoying themselves?

[Midnight_v]

The neckbeards have a relatively simply platform:
<snipped>

Look, Frank: everyone knows that by merely existing, every other game out there - and especially every other version of D&D - is an affront to 3.x and must be destroyed. And while everyone here likes to OCD all over the rules, you have also been around long enough to remember that there wasn't a screaming match every session over AD&D rules, even when the DM was winging it. I understand the Den likes to call that 'magical tea party', but it worked pretty well for 25years.

Or was it like Ron Edwards said, the people at your table were brain damaged and weren't actually enjoying themselves?

Bullshit. It didn't work for 25 years, which is why there are never ending system addendums, as well as rule 0. Somethings freaking honestly DID not work, the only thing that worked there was "Dm is GOD" and so must be obeyed or we get NO rpg. If you wanted to play a ttrpg (and since videogames were farily fucking limited at the time) instead of pong or something, you basically where at the whim of various assholes. Alternatively, you might have a parent or older relative/neighbor running it typically, these people came with an authority set in general so things not being questioned was the norm.

The argument of "shit worked all these years before. Should have the addendum: Because most people didn't know what the fuck was actually going on.
Or alternately: Because no one bothered to look to closely.
Finally: Nerds had less options by far before 1985 or so.

The more computers got popular the more peopel could share bullshit tales of how D&D didn't work, and how the worst people imaginable were often the ones sitting behind rule 0. Blah.
This has nothing to do with just giving the fighter spells, or monkey points or what have you. As it stands the options are pretty damned limited.

[StormBringer]

Bullshit. It didn't work for 25 years, which is why there are never ending system addendums, as well as rule 0. Somethings freaking honestly DID not work, the only thing that worked there was "Dm is GOD" and so must be obeyed or we get NO rpg. If you wanted to play a ttrpg (and since videogames were farily fucking limited at the time) instead of pong or something, you basically where at the whim of various assholes. Alternatively, you might have a parent or older relative/neighbor running it typically, these people came with an authority set in general so things not being questioned was the norm.

The argument of "shit worked all these years before. Should have the addendum: Because most people didn't know what the fuck was actually going on.
Or alternately: Because no one bothered to look to closely.
Finally: Nerds had less options by far before 1985 or so.

The more computers got popular the more peopel could share bullshit tales of how D&D didn't work, and how the worst people imaginable were often the ones sitting behind rule 0. Blah.
This has nothing to do with just giving the fighter spells, or monkey points or what have you. As it stands the options are pretty damned limited.

Huh. So, for 25 years, no one was having fun and we really were all brain damaged. Noted.

I wonder, though... maybe the game wasn't really the problem. Maybe it was a combination of folks that simply didn't like any authority figures and more than a few DMs that ran games were less than moderately good. I mean, do you suppose that someone who is constantly belligerent with the DM (authority figure) is really going to make the game a good experience for everyone else?

It sounds like you had more than a few run-ins yourself ("...you basically where at the whim of various assholes."). Were you really not able to find anyone that was good at running games? Further, was the general atmosphere that the DM was never questioned under any circumstances ("...these people came with an authority set in general so things not being questioned was the norm.")?

Lastly, is that the general experience of the posters here? No authority is good because it was routinely abused, questioning them was 'punished', and this was universally true for every table?

[Chamomile]

The vast majority of human beings don't have anywhere near the level of restraint required to be a good GM. Most of them either allow just about anything or spend the whole session railroading. Systems don't need to worry about crazy powertripping GMs because those are a problem systems can't possibly solve except by being video games and thus not having a GM at all, but they absolutely should be designed around an average GM. It's easy to make a good game when designing for a really good GM. They'll houserule stuff that doesn't quite work and are good enough at storytelling and the illusion of choice to make the game work and player choices matter even if you're barely even using the actual written rules. I can make you a system by this time tomorrow, from scratch, which a hypothetical really good GM can spin a really good game out of. That doesn't mean it won't be a really bad system.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Yeah, Fuchs. But those players who don't want to drive plots outside combat should be neither forced nor rewarded for doing so.

Personally, I think that unless the game is specifically supposed to be as shallow as a Hackmaster dungeon crawl they should be punished. Not punishment as in the DM breaking the fourth wall and zapping the player with a Bolt of Judgment but an indirect in-game punishment. Something like handing out/recharging FATE or Edge or whatever points based on individual roleplaying contributions.

Individual groups can of course lift or skirt the punishment in much the same way that a DM can hand out +10 Rattus Morningstars to rat flail players or toss out lightsabers to the basketweaver who put 8 levels in commoner and 6 in aristocrat because it was more flavorful. But as far as the default assumption of D&D goes, if you're not making at least a token effort towards roleplaying, then fuck you.

Meaning that DMFs like Doomsday and Kenpachi and whatever have to go. I don't have a problem with the Conans and the James Bonds of the world provided they respect level limits, but the El Ravagers and Gourrys are a blight on this game and should be tolerated in the same way we tolerate mosquito bites or sunburns -- an unfortunate inconvenience that can't be avoided no matter how much you try. I mean, shit, just look at the grognard whining. That's what celebrating the DMF does to the hobby.

[Username17]

Huh. So, for 25 years, no one was having fun and we really were all brain damaged. Noted.

That's a ridiculous amount of straw. For 25 years, the vast majority of games were played with extremely heavy house rules. Because, wait for it... people at the time did not feel that the rules as written were working for them.

For fuck's sake: the neckbeards were just arguing that only a terrible DM that they would never play with would not make up rules on the fly allowing a random 9th level fighter with no relevant abilities at all to be more successful at finding the lair of a terrorist in the mountains than the entire United States Army. Not only were they advocating heavy house rules, they were openly contemptuous of people who aren't continuously writing more.

Because the rules actually in the book do not work for them. At all.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

I mean, let's look at El Ravager again because while KotDT is supposed to be a parody, much of its humor stems from its alternate perspective on player social dynamics that gamers take for granted.

In the years both in-game, out-game, and the actual publication years El Ravager never initiated anything on his own more interesting than being a murder-bot. Knuckles, Zayre, and Teflon Billy/Lotus often did. When B.A. forced Dave to break out of the El Ravager mindset and made him play a gnome battlemage, Dave's character became a lot more interesting and he played him more creatively. But when he got El Ravager back again, he regressed back into the same boring killbot mode.

Letting the Dave 2.0s have their way -- or worse, catering to them by making EZ-Mode classes -- is probably the worst design decision anyone can make as long as the designer's ultimate goal is to have a system that creates interesting cooperative stories while simultaneously having an interesting combat simulator. It's unfair to the other players who have to pick up the storytelling slack and it's also unfair to Dave; you're letting him wallow in his unoriginality and suck and telling him that's okay. That's not empowering. That's like the exact opposite.

[Midnight_v]

Exactly, in all honestly, it worked at many peoples tables because many people weren't even playing a game AT ALL. They were just telling a story, so yeah, you can totally get magical tea party to work with even the most shabby of rules. Especially if its "common" knowledge that you only die if you "do something stupid".

Were you really not able to find anyone that was good at running games?

I find it somewhat banal that you attempt to shine the light directly at "ME", because I'm a bad random sample but still I'll entertain that briefly for a second.

First, let me go on record as saying I have no problem with authority. If my post read to you like that then well thats just fucking horrible comm on my behalf, and I've had that pointed out to me several times the last week so ymmv. So again, authority is not something I have a problems with. . . general assholery though I kinda dispute.

Further, I have had both good and bad Dm's in my time. I personally had the benefit of gaming with reasonable people, who understood the value of consitent rules before I ran into any bad folks. I made the mistake of thinking that all gaming groups would be like my first where everyone game together understood the rules, talked about what you wanted to really accomplish with your Character, and if the rules didn't cover a concept... then we'd have to invent something that would. None the less that is a functionality of that specific group of people, not anything that can be attributed to "D&D" in general. I dare say that the first game group we had could have been playing almost any game and got along well. Also, in my home my brothers and I actually rolled dice and magical tea partied stories quite a bit that didn't have the distiction of being D&D at all and that works too. Though you can do things like tha w/o shelling moneys our for hardback books as well. (Downloadables for that matter).

On the other hand, however, I've seen some pretty ridiculous people, playing too, jerks who let "rocks fall" at the slightest inklng that the player may get off the railroad. I've seen things much worse than that too, people who didn't want you to know the rules so they could change them on the fly. People who used shuma-gorath sex-cultists, and those who treated CN as the alignment of "I am going to disrupt the game and not be evil"; and Dm pcs, Dm Girlfriends, and Dm's who were clearly going though some kind of penis inferiority thing.

Now, thats anecdotally, but I see those same kind of things echoed over and over again. . . and again. Over about 8-10 years being on forums about the internet. Even when they got rules it was screw up by idiots who persisted in willfully NOT understanding that the game had any sort of rules, then it was the balance of "core", and then the Too much anime bullshit. Which brings us to the thread at hand. Honestly, those neckbeards aren't just wrong because they're wrong, but wrong because they refuse any logic on matters, because they feel like "this is the way its supposed to be" Finally, becaues the "way it supposed to be" is highly nebulous and inconsitent to the point of being unintelligble.

Uttimatly, there was never 25 years of D&D "Working pretty well" it ws 25 years of people "managing to make do", because while the game was crooked it was the only game in town.

[StormBringer]

That's a ridiculous amount of straw. For 25 years, the vast majority of games were played with extremely heavy house rules. Because, wait for it... people at the time did not feel that the rules as written were working for them.

For fuck's sake: the neckbeards were just arguing that only a terrible DM that they would never play with would not make up rules on the fly allowing a random 9th level fighter with no relevant abilities at all to be more successful at finding the lair of a terrorist in the mountains than the entire United States Army. Not only were they advocating heavy house rules, they were openly contemptuous of people who aren't continuously writing more.

Because the rules actually in the book do not work for them. At all.

-Username17

You were there, at every table? I don't remember you showing up when I was in high school playing AD&D, Frank.

Or perhaps you might consider that everyone you know, everyone you have ever talked to, everyone who was ever on rec.games.rpg (or any other Usenet group, the WotC boards, early AOL boards, IRC or whatever communication channel you pick), and everyone that has ever stopped by TGD to complain about anything might be, just maybe, only a small percentage of the total population of gamers. In other words, your sample size might be just a bit too small to make sweeping statements like "...the vast majority of games were played with extremely heavy house rules. Because, wait for it... people at the time did not feel that the rules as written were working for them. " You weren't there. You have no clue how the 'vast majority' of games were played.

AD&D sucks for you. AD&D sucks for the people you know. AD&D sucks for The Gaming Den populace in general. But let's not pretend you speak for 'the vast majority' of gamers, even by proxy. If the vast majority saw games the way you folks do, we would be sitting here discussing how the RPG industry disappeared in 2002 or so.

Keep up the OCD inspired weird edge case analysis, I enjoy it, and it helps when designing house-rules and such. But don't imagine that most RPG players (ie, the casuals) really run into that kind of problem. Hell, even hardcore grognards like myself don't run into these sorts of problems. It only seems like these problems crop up in... hmmm... the ridiculously over-burdened with rules version(s), like 3.x and beyond. Where the mechanics almost encourage a frantic deck-building madness to crop up.

Odd, that.

[StormBringer]

Exactly, in all honestly, it worked at many peoples tables because many people weren't even playing a game AT ALL. They were just telling a story, so yeah, you can totally get magical tea party to work with even the most shabby of rules. Especially if its "common" knowledge that you only die if you "do something stupid".

Was this happening at your table?

Further, I have had both good and bad Dm's in my time. I personally had the benefit of gaming with reasonable people, who understood the value of consitent rules before I ran into any bad folks. I made the mistake of thinking that all gaming groups would be like my first where everyone game together understood the rules, talked about what you wanted to really accomplish with your Character, and if the rules didn't cover a concept... then we'd have to invent something that would. None the less that is a functionality of that specific group of people, not anything that can be attributed to "D&D" in general. I dare say that the first game group we had could have been playing almost any game and got along well. Also, in my home my brothers and I actually rolled dice and magical tea partied stories quite a bit that didn't have the distiction of being D&D at all and that works too. Though you can do things like tha w/o shelling moneys our for hardback books as well. (Downloadables for that matter).

So, you houseruled quite a bit in the beginning and enjoyed playing 'magical tea party' with your brothers. What was your complaint again? Something about Rule 0, DMs making stuff up, and being at the whims of a 'magical tea party'?

On the other hand, however, I've seen some pretty ridiculous people, playing too, jerks who let "rocks fall" at the slightest inklng that the player may get off the railroad. I've seen things much worse than that too, people who didn't want you to know the rules so they could change them on the fly. People who used shuma-gorath sex-cultists, and those who treated CN as the alignment of "I am going to disrupt the game and not be evil"; and Dm pcs, Dm Girlfriends, and Dm's who were clearly going though some kind of penis inferiority thing.

And you were forced at gunpoint to keep playing with these groups?

Now, thats anecdotally, but I see those same kind of things echoed over and over again. . . and again. Over about 8-10 years being on forums about the internet.

That is most of your problem right there.

Even when they got rules it was screw up by idiots who persisted in willfully NOT understanding that the game had any sort of rules, then it was the balance of "core", and then the Too much anime bullshit. Which brings us to the thread at hand. Honestly, those neckbeards aren't just wrong because they're wrong, but wrong because they refuse any logic on matters, because they feel like "this is the way its supposed to be" Finally, becaues the "way it supposed to be" is highly nebulous and inconsitent to the point of being unintelligble.

Hmmm... logic... Ok, demonstrate (formal or informal, your choice) why an Attack of Opportunity is correct. You can pick any other mechanic or rule, if you prefer. For bonus points, demonstrate how Attacks of Opportunity (or again, your pick) is 'logical' and not a designer's version of "this is the way its supposed to be"; hence, it is the opposite of "...highly nebulous and inconsitent to the point of being unintelligble."

Uttimatly, there was never 25 years of D&D "Working pretty well" it ws 25 years of people "managing to make do", because while the game was crooked it was the only game in town.

Really? Over 25 years, AD&D was the only game in town? I know people that gamed through all or most of those 25 years (myself included), and AD&D was most certainly not the only game in town. Like today, it is certainly the easiest game in town to organize. But the only game? lolno. Not by a long shot.

fixed quote tag --Z