Well-Poisoning Creator's Bias Thread

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:23 am

The problem is the ugly races theory doesn't explain the failure of the half elf, the succubus, the nymph or the fairy.

While the fluff balancing theory fails to explain the failure of the Half Orc and friends.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:51 am

Elennsar wrote:Because people have decided "hey we disagree with a statement of opinion and are going to argue with it instead of noting it and staying on topic."

More like, "Hey Elennsar said something stupid and completely contradictory to the point of the thread, lets tell him to stop being retarded and trying to argue his pet theory in every thread."

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:59 am

Sooooo, you derailed the thread to have an arguement over something you think is stupid, instead of ignoring any off topicness of it.

Got it.

So, did someone mention sorcerers as "we hate people who have a talent for spellcasting instead of preparing it (and thusly having potentially every spell we have in the game)"?

If not, this is an obvious one.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:56 am

Elennsar wrote:Sooooo, you derailed the thread to have an arguement over something you think is stupid, instead of ignoring any off topicness of it.

No, you "derailed a thread" (something that doesn't make any conceptual sense in the gaming den) by blabbing about your pet theory, even though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Absentminded_Wizard · Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:13 am

PhoneLobster wrote:The problem is the ugly races theory doesn't explain the failure of the half elf, the succubus, the nymph or the fairy.

While the fluff balancing theory fails to explain the failure of the Half Orc and friends.

Well, neither in isolation can explain all hose things, but there's nothing that says the designers can't have more than one bias. The more obvious argument against the fluff balance theory is that elves are considered so cool by so many people that they should suck. Of course, that's easily explained by the Tolkien fanboy bias.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:54 pm

Warforged are pretty good actually.

Bigode:

Talisman: I don't eat burger wrappers. Blame Elennsar.

Speaking of which, do you really want to start this up again Elenn? TGD isn't nearly as nice to idiots as BG is.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:12 pm

Well thank goodness, for a second I was worried PL was just unable to understand the concept that races with mechanical differences will behave differently mechanically, but then he very graciously clarified for me that:

and correct me if I'm wrong here, that we all think that race in this model should have some game mechanical implications.
You are wrong.

Which clears things up immensely, because when all races are nothing more than flavor text, the problem we were talking about absolutely does get solved.

As for the original topic, did anyone mention Skip "I hate sorcerers" Williams yet?

Edit: Oh, Elennsar did a couple posts up. So yeah, there's that.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:42 pm

Its about as good at recognizing idiots, however. How dare anyone suggest something contrary to what one thinks. Since the judger is presumably not an idiot, all people of a contrary opinion are either idiots or too stubborn for their own good.

As for stuff that is done badly from designer bias: We all know fighters suck. Is this just a D&D tradition at this point?

"Fighters not only don't get nice things, they suck at surviving attacks from anyone worth a damn."

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:37 pm

Elennsar: The Den is a very...opinionated place. You're not going to change anyone's opinion, and good luck finding some middle ground. My advice, if you've got an unpopular idea, is to glean what information you can from the useful stuff amid the storm of insults, then ignore the rest.

Regarding fighters: Spellcasters can rip mountains in half because that's what they do in the legends. Also, they have a strict hierarchy of spells, and a spell of level X HAS to be more powerful than X-1. Therefore, 9th level spells HAVE to be an order of magnitude more powerful than 1st-2nd level spells.

By contrast, fighters can't do anything a fully-trained Marine couldn't do, because fighters are just really skilled people. There, balanced.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:09 pm

I don't mind not changing anyone's opinion, I just mind the attitude that if you disagree with (person in question), you're a moron, because only a moron would disagree with (person in question).

"You're a moron because you disagree with me!" is pure crap.

As for fighters:

Yeah, we definately have the idea that fighters are supposed to suck, but that characters in general, not so much.

As in, its not that no human should be able to slay a dragon, its that any human dumb enough to use a sword should be slain by a dragon.

Stupid designers. Make up your minds on if you want dragonslayers or not.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:28 pm

Elennsar wrote:I don't mind not changing anyone's opinion, I just mind the attitude that if you disagree with (person in question), you're a moron, because only a moron would disagree with (person in question).

"You're a moron because you disagree with me!" is pure crap.

Luckily nobody but you thinks that way (see Warhammer thread for example). The reason people think you opinion that all races should suck at certain things is stupid is because it's an imbalanced system that shows lack of imagination and has absolutely no benefits that justify using it.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:36 pm

Other than having one's choice of race actually influence something than utterly irrelevant fluff, there's no reason for one's choice of race to actually grant bonuses that might actually matter in regards to whether you are a fighter (or cleric or monk or whatever).

The only way to make racial bonuses irrelevant winds up with being a minotaur being no better at any point in any way than playing a halfling. Different, yes, but with no actual advantages.

And if you're not even having minotaurs act in certain ways as a race, then its literally as meaningful to write "minotaur" on your sheet as "blonde haired".

I don't think that people who disagree with me are morons, I'm just not convinced that "totally dysfunctional" is either supported or plausible in the Warhammer setting.

So, congradulations on totally failing to understand or even try to understand what I think and why I would think what I do.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:57 pm

Elennsar wrote:Other than having one's choice of race actually influence something than utterly irrelevant fluff, there's no reason for one's choice of race to actually grant bonuses that might actually matter in regards to whether you are a fighter (or cleric or monk or whatever).

The only way to make racial bonuses irrelevant winds up with being a minotaur being no better at any point in any way than playing a halfling. Different, yes, but with no actual advantages.

Wrong dumb shit, you can get advantages that are not inherently better for a given class.

There is no reason being stronger automatically makes you a better fighter, or being smaller makes you a better rogue.

Nevermind that, "minotaur being no better at any point in any way than playing a halfling" is correct. At any given level the two should be equally as good. At any given level, they should each be capable of defeating the same challenges, and neither one should have an inherently better chance at accomplishing what the character was designed to do.

If you want, in all your worlds, for Minotaurs to be better, then make Minotuars higher level then halflings. But at no point should a PC be punished for choosing to play a Halfling.

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:58 pm

My opinion is that an elven ranger ought to have some elf things off a list and a dwarf ranger ought to have some dwarf things off a different list, but both should have a core set of ranger things plus some secondary ranger things. For example, in a Tome game, the dwarf would get better favored enemy bonuses and do his sneaking with pass without trace and silksteel armor, while the elf does it by minimizing armor and has better maneuverability.

edit: I agree with Kaelik on the halfling-minotaur debate. The thing is that all starting minotaur fighters are Minotaur 4/ fighter 1, while a starting halfling fighter is a Fighter 1.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:16 pm

Okay, let me get this straight. D&D is a roleplaying game, which means that among other things we roleplay characters.

So if I pick a character who is an albino, that shouldn't be a weakness.

And if I pick a strong and tough race, they should never have any advantages at being a fighter, since making it so that strong and tough people are better fighters are unfair to the people who aren't strong and tough.

That's not about roleplaying a person who may or may not be able. That's about trying to get great bonuses without suffering any penalties to do things that your race would not be that great at.

"I want to play a monk, even though my character's race has poor (Wisdom)! And I don't want to suffer for it even though I picked something that isn't as good!"

Why not just give characters X +2s (or +4s, or whatever) to assign wherever they like, or better yet, make it so that there are no racial features that ever matter to anything.

Just give features that you might as well not record because if they ever come up, then being a ___ will be an unfair advantage over people who picked something else.

Zerus: Generally, I agree. But having it be so that elves can't get +2 to several ranger skills or dwarves can't get -2 to Dex (which is inconvenient at best for rangers) because that would mean that one race is actually more able to do ranger things is bogus.

Balance by ensuring everyone is identical is boring. Balance by ensuring everyone of an equal level and tier (if you're playing archons, you're really not balanced with level 1 characters and never will be...but you could do a Hound Archon that's balanced as a racial thing with a 6th level character, theoretically. On the reverse, a kobold is equal to someone a level lower, so he'd be a level higher to be equal overall, say.) is roughly equal in their "do well, do alright, and do poorly" time is a good thing.

There are times that being a member of an underground race is an advantage. There are times it isn't. The overall benefits should balance out unless the ECL concept actually represents how much better you are, so that just being a Drow (for instance) makes you able to adventure iwth level 2s as an equal.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:17 pm

Elennsar - 3:20 PM, death by snusnu.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:21 pm

On the list of things that the designers broke for no good reason...

Mauls. At least a greataxe is almost equal to a greatsword.

But a maul is a d10!

Apparently, the logic is that using a two handed hammer should be discouraged for no apparent reason.

And since its not a core item in the first place, one wonders why they even included it if it was supposed to be inferior to the point you wouldn't want to use it.

Is there a bias against bludgeoning weapons in general (other than vs. things where crits don't come up)? They seem to be written as inferior to slashing or even piercing in...all the cases that come to mind.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:36 pm

Actually of all three weapon types bludgeoning it the best since few things have damage reduction that reduces it.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:38 pm

Yeah, but the weapons tend to be the weakest.

Not too bad if you're fighting undead or constructs (where the fact maces are simple isn't hurting you at all), but mauls having a d10 is a bit much.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:43 pm

Elennsar wrote:Balance by ensuring everyone is identical is boring.

Correct. And this is the problem with 4e, and why the people spazzing out about balance need to chill the fuck out. I'm against the level of imbalance we see between casters and non-casters in 3e, but to demand everything be 100% equally balanced in all circumstances whatsoever or else you're a bad game designer is ridiculous.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:47 pm

The trick is to ensure that all things are viable an equal amount of the time, and for most of the "not doing well" to still be "not sucking".

There is a place between "spotlight time" and "nap time" that all characters should be in most of the time, as well. Doing well enough that its worth paying attention to (or at least doing stuff worth paying attention to) is better than having an alternating suck/rule balance, where you're either the only character that needs to be in the group at all or worse than useless.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:41 pm

D&D is a fucking game where people play characters who are supposed to be equal because they are the same level.

Therefore, yes, being an Albino should not be a weakness, it means you get Darkvision, and in the sun you just wear a fucking cloak. If Albino is so fucking bad, then you would be dead. If it is not, then it is not a weakness.

D&D is not for you to pretend you are Joe the Cripple who gets devoured by the dragon, because if you try to be joe, you sabotage everyone else in the party. And that's just being a dick. No, you fucking play Joe the cripple who learned how to cast Overland flight and flys around smoking dragons with his buds, because he needs to be able to beat CR challenges.

Oh noes, my Race has a penalty to Wisdom, so I just build a Cha based Monk, or a Str based one. Or a Dex based one. Or anything at fucking all. Because Monks don't have to have fucking higher then average Wisdom to be a viable character facing CR challenges. And the idea that - Wis races should automatically be worse Monks just because I want them to be is fucking retarded.

Level Measures power. If you want to be a weak pussy who pisses of your party then just arbitrarily deduct a level, everyone else will be just fine playing a real game.

Making strong and tough a better fighter then quick and smart, when both are the same level, is fucking retarded. It is stupid. It needs to die in a fire.

No one is identical. Stop fucking Strawmaning.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 1:13 am

I was really hoping this argument would have finished by the time I woke up. On at least one of the fucking threads.

Elennsar: you don't want to play D&D, you want a different game, just like you don't actually want a system that can exist and you don't actually want a game set in Skubhammer. Please, if it will make you shut up.

And let's allow a thread to go back to bitching about designer stupidity or something.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 1:25 am

I'm not even really sure what the hell's being argued about over these threads anymore. I tried to read Elen's and his detractors' posts, but both sides are exaggerating/simplifying each other's opinions into unrecognizable diatribes.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:59 am

virgileso wrote:I'm not even really sure what the hell's being argued about over these threads anymore. I tried to read Elen's and his detractors' posts, but both sides are exaggerating/simplifying each other's opinions into unrecognizable diatribes.

Finally, someone with reason.

Elennsar, Kaelik, what say you boys go start a new thread to argue in, m'kay?