D&D is a cooperative RPG

[Kaelik]

JE, please stop posting. Ever.

You make Plebian and shadzar look intelligent and articulate.

[icyshadowlord]

JE, please stop posting. Ever.

You make Plebian and shadzar look intelligent and articulate.

...what.

I'd rather keep him here than listen to Plebian. But hey, this wasn't my business to begin with, so who gives a shit?

[Judging__Eagle]

Who ever said I was more than a squawking bird?

I don't really think I could stop posting even if I wanted to. Some of the things that I see here are just so untrue that my eyes boil. My eyes are boiling over here, it's hard to not want to talk about what is causing said eye-boiling, and hopefully come to some sort of conclusion about what people are talking about.

shadzar is obviously talking about how their homebrew D&D game played out. They were all "co-operative" and stuff, and issues like the "1 Hit Point" Wizard were not major game issues, since they either just gave out full HP for the first HD (a houserule that made it's way into 3e). Heck, even the notion of "co-operative" game play that Shad is so obviously hard for was the basis of how 3E was designed. 3E was designed around the "4 person party" and had a group of characters that were considered to be equally "heroic".

Except, that's bullcrap. Fighters sucked early on in D&D, and you generally made them out of characters that you had rolled low stats for, and hopefully they's stop a troll from eating someone useful, and you'd roll a new character. They were simple to make, play, and died easily. PCs would hire them in groups to help storm larger dungeons, since this was still supposed to be a wargame where somewhat mortal characters went to crazy places and fought dangerous enemies. That was like, level 10.

Going beyond that meant crazier things, like fighting the famed Asmodeus, or Type 3 or 5 Demons, or a Dragon with multiple treasure rolls (someone got a +6 ring of protection that way; and the piles of treasure seemed so massive, that no one cared that someone had an Epic ring, I mean, we got a bunch of powerful magic weapons, armour, special items and of course the massive piles of coins to be carted off by mammoth to fund our world conquest efforts, each of us wanted our own barony, and had decided that a bunch of powerful adventurers could conquer a lot more territory a lot faster).

Shad, your notion of how D&D should be played... is why the edition that pisses you off the most was created. I find the irony of that to be hilarious. Old-school D&D as you imagined it was for you, is what 3E is supposed to be like, and sort of fails to live up to. I think that's part of the problem, the failing to live up to the goals of fixing the previous edition's problems.

[shadzar]

No it is how anyone with two brain cells played the game after understanding it, while the retards without didnt understand it, and can barely aspire to be as smart as Sarah Palin one day if they try really really hard. Then they might understand the word cooperate. We will call these people who never did, and still do not understand the game was about, not just my home game, but the game itself as given in the OBJECTIVE of the game, cooperation...We will call then, including yourself, Palinites.

When you finally reach the status of having a minimum of two brain cells, then come back and try again, but I wont put much faith in your growing the first, let alone second brain cell.

[Plebian]

No it is how anyone with two brain cells played the game after understanding it, while the retards without didnt understand it, and can barely aspire to be as smart as Sarah Palin one day if they try really really hard. Then they might understand the word cooperate. We will call these people who never did, and still do not understand the game was about, not just my home game, but the game itself as given in the OBJECTIVE of the game, cooperation...We will call then, including yourself, Palinites.

When you finally reach the status of having a minimum of two brain cells, then come back and try again, but I wont put much faith in your growing the first, let alone second brain cell.

in other words

STOP HAVING FUN WRONG

[Swordslinger]

The player party wont be full of fighters only, and the NPC party wont be full of wizards.

What if your PCs are going against a guild of evil wizards?

[Bobikus]

Having your characters be pre-designed to work together and having a perfectly cooperative party is boring to RP anyway. Inter-party conflict is fun, and far more so when the scale of balance between classes isn't horribly skewed.

[violence in the media]

Having your characters be pre-designed to work together and having a perfectly cooperative party is boring to RP anyway. Inter-party conflict is fun, and far more so when the scale of balance between classes isn't horribly skewed.

It's true. The best games I've played or run had loads of inter-party conflict and hostility.

[Judging__Eagle]

No it is how anyone with two brain cells played the game after understanding it, while the retards without didnt understand it, and can barely aspire to be as smart as Sarah Palin one day if they try really really hard. Then they might understand the word cooperate. We will call these people who never did, and still do not understand the game was about, not just my home game, but the game itself as given in the OBJECTIVE of the game, cooperation...We will call then, including yourself, Palinites.

When you finally reach the status of having a minimum of two brain cells, then come back and try again, but I wont put much faith in your growing the first, let alone second brain cell.

Alright mr.mussolini, we'll do as you say we should.

So long as we get to string you up on piano wire when we realize that it's boring, stupid, and not entertaining at all.

Deal?

[shadzar]

The player party wont be full of fighters only, and the NPC party wont be full of wizards.

What if your PCs are going against a guild of evil wizards?

Depends on how many of they there are. If like 20 orcs, you wouldnt really want to fight them all at once, you would want to somehow break them into smaller groups. So you draw out the group slowly rather than try to take them on at once.

Having your characters be pre-designed to work together and having a perfectly cooperative party is boring to RP anyway. Inter-party conflict is fun, and far more so when the scale of balance between classes isn't horribly skewed.

Inter-party conflict is one thing, but when it requires the character sheet and dice to resolve, then the game has already hit a snag and there is a problem that requires stop playing to figure out.

Sounds more like you are talking about inter-party combat, not just conflict.

[Plebian]

actually we had some inter-party conflict recently when my recently joined Seeker unknowingly killed a family member of our Rogue. she flipped out and murdered the shit out of my elf. it was all in-character, it threw a wrench into our plans, and it only added to the campaign. he's been ressed, the DM ruled that since death was nearly instantaneous (and incredibly violent) that my Seeker lost the last minute before death, and now it's turned into fun roleplay in many different ways.

what I'm saying is you're stupid as shit, shadzar, for thinking that D&D can only be played correctly in one specific way

[shadzar]

actually we had some inter-party conflict recently when my recently joined Seeker unknowingly killed a family member of our Rogue. she flipped out and murdered the shit out of my elf. it was all in-character, it threw a wrench into our plans, and it only added to the campaign. he's been ressed, the DM ruled that since death was nearly instantaneous (and incredibly violent) that my Seeker lost the last minute before death, and now it's turned into fun roleplay in many different ways.

But you dont recognize the key thing in it all...That scenario worked for one reason...the player were cooperating to make it work.

Now you have to decide where to go from there, so that doesnt end the game. If the game ends or goes south form it, then it wasnt really cooperative and led to something that disrupted the game.

If you continue the game and say c'est la vie...and things continue to work and that memorable moment was fun for all, the cooperative game worked.

Constant killing of the other party members though does not even mean playing the same game D&D was made for. An exception to the rule, does not make the rule invalid. You have actually proven that the cooperative efforts make the game work.

No clue what a Seeker is by the way. Seems like the group of players as well the DM went along with and enjoyed it. That or the group really doesnt want you playing and killed your character off quickly, hoping it would make you not return to play again.

[Bobikus]

Having your characters be pre-designed to work together and having a perfectly cooperative party is boring to RP anyway. Inter-party conflict is fun, and far more so when the scale of balance between classes isn't horribly skewed.

Inter-party conflict is one thing, but when it requires the character sheet and dice to resolve, then the game has already hit a snag and there is a problem that requires stop playing to figure out.

Sounds more like you are talking about inter-party combat, not just conflict.

Combat is a natural result of conflict.

[echoVanguard]

It sounds to me like most of you are actually arguing different arguments. Shadzar seems convinced that whatever problems the system might have can be overcome by players working cooperatively, while most of the others (especially Plebian) are arguing an entirely different point, which is that the system has problems, irrelevant to whether the players work cooperatively or not.

That being said, it comes down to whether you prefer realism or fun-optimization in your D&D - the system provides avenues for each. I don't think anyone can realistically make any sort of argument that fighters and wizards even operate on the same plane of personal power - whether or not that fact impedes your enjoyment of the game is entirely dependent on the type of game you play. Even a cooperatively-minded game with a heavy bent towards "realism of intention" is going to see some pretty serious repercussions of the class power disparities in 3.X.

echo

[shadzar]

It sounds to me like most of you are actually arguing different arguments. Shadzar seems convinced that whatever problems the system might have can be overcome by players working cooperatively

Not exactly true.

More to the point that some problems do NOT exist with the game IF played cooperatively, and that people are CAUSING problems the game doesnt have when they do NOT work cooperatively.

I am saying a fish swims fine, while others are saying a fish on dry land cannot swim; because they are removing it from the environment it was made for.

Basically the group dynamic of the game has been lost in favor of the individual player, while the game still is made with the group in made, NOT the individual player.

[echoVanguard]

stuff

Not exactly true.

More to the point that some problems do NOT exist with the game IF played cooperatively, and that people are CAUSING problems the game doesnt have when they do NOT work cooperatively.

I am saying a fish swims fine, while others are saying a fish on dry land cannot swim; because they are removing it from the environment it was made for.

Basically the group dynamic of the game has been lost in favor of the individual player, while the game still is made with the group in made, NOT the individual player.

While I can definitely see where you're coming from, you're positing a complex series of constructed environments that don't really exist. What's the dry land here analogous to? If I'm playing a fighter, and my friend is playing a wizard, and we go up against two wizards, what's the optimal tactic here? Should my wizard friend cast a spell to buff me, or a spell to hinder our foes, or a spell to destroy then both outright?

- If the wizard casts a spell to buff me, he's effectively pinning his hopes on the chance that I'll be effective against both of the other wizards before they can kill one of us, which is a valid (if risky) choice.
- If he casts a spell to hinder our foes, that has a good chance of increasing our chances of success overall without making me feel useless, but he's still pinning his hopes on me capitalizing on the advantage he gives me - to a lesser degree than the first option, but still there.
- If he casts a spell to destroy both of our foes outright, he runs the risk of making me as a fighter feel useless, but this time he's directly pinning his hopes on an outcome that doesn't involve an unknown factor (me, the fighter). His spell might work, or it might not - however, if he's highly optimized his character, it will have a very good chance of killing or crippling his foe regardless of things like poor rolls or good saving throws. This tactic has the added benefit of being the most likely to take one or both of our opponents out of the fight very quickly, resulting in minimal risk to me, my friend, our party, and our party's goals.

Now, let's turn the tables. Do I, the fighter, have to make any choice similar to the above? No, because I don't really have the ability to affect the game to a similar degree - I can choose HOW I attack one or both of our foes, but my options for participation in the entire narrative are decidedly narrower.

What's effectively happened here is that I have a significantly diminished ability to make meaningful choices in the game compared to my friend based solely upon our respective character classes (and we won't even discuss out-of-combat options). You can argue that that's okay, but you can't deny it exists - while it's true that any player can have fun roleplaying their character regardless of the character's power level, it's not true that a powerless character is necessarily just as fun to play as a powerful character. In fact, I'm fairly confident that given the option to play a compelling powerful character versus a compelling less-powerful character, a sizable majority of people would take the first option, because they have no incentive not to.

If your counter-argument is "well if you want to have that level of choice, you should have played a wizard instead of a fighter", that is a pretty damning indictment of relative power levels as a method for player involvement, isn't it?

echo

[shadzar]

stuff

Not exactly true.

More to the point that some problems do NOT exist with the game IF played cooperatively, and that people are CAUSING problems the game doesnt have when they do NOT work cooperatively.

I am saying a fish swims fine, while others are saying a fish on dry land cannot swim; because they are removing it from the environment it was made for.

Basically the group dynamic of the game has been lost in favor of the individual player, while the game still is made with the group in made, NOT the individual player.

While I can definitely see where you're coming from, you're positing a complex series of constructed environments that don't really exist. What's the dry land here analogous to? If I'm playing a fighter, and my friend is playing a wizard, and we go up against two wizards, what's the optimal tactic here?

Here is the most important thing. There is NO optimal tactic. D&D doesnt work like that because EVERY variable CAN be taken into account.

Also 2 people playing is too few for D&D. This removes it from its environment again. There is a reason that MOST adventures started suggesting 4 player minimums, as this would solve many problems. Too few, and you dont have enough characters for things assumed by the game.

Another thing to consider, is the game isnt really made for long term use of PC-type vs PC-type. You can for special cases, but once those special cases are each time, they are no longer special, and the game isnt made for the PC-type to always be the opponent. It assume the monsters with Hit Die rather tha PC-class are the opponent.

So taking on a PC-type is a special case, but also outside of the games environment.

For tactics, you might as well be asking, "do we attack or defend first?" That will vary on situation, mood, what you are wanting form the game now, what the opponent can do, your resources, their resources, etc.

Also you must consider the narrative is not a single combat situation. That is where most of the Fighter v Wizard argument fails. It still lives within a vacuum if only tying it to a single combat situation. One reason being there is more than one combat in a game. Another being, combat is not the only part of the game.

Consider combat alone, you have more than one to look at. The ability of who does more damage now to further the narrative and allow for control of later narrative means little as later narrative will happen later. Also the wizard expending all resources now, will be less able to do things later.

I know 3rd royally screwed up, and gave casters much much more than previous editions, because negative affects for casters were removed to placate people who didnt like them, so the caster got WAY out of hand. There was nothing left to balance their power such as older days. That being the case, I rarely look at 3rd because it is jsut totally screwed up by trying to fix many problems that didnt exist and in turn created the actual problems it was trying to fix. 4th I dont consider D&D byt a new and similar game with the D&D label glued to it. It is an abomination more than an anomaly...so i ignore it.

Now this does mean 3rd system is flawed...but I will never argue otherwise. But it does NOT mean D&D is flawed as a game, because D&D, contrary to many, is NOT jsut 3rd, or now in light of 4th others can see what it means to those during 4th...that D&D is not just 4th...

It is larger than the current edition, and odds are older editions will live on much longer and simply not by virtue of them being older.

That said looking at the system of checks and balances, thre is a lot of damage a wizard can do prior to third, but it came at often great costs. Sometimes damage to the wizard for using it, and other times delaying the party, or making them go without the ability of the wizard if the wizard has exhausted everything. The ability of a wizard to do one massive thing was basically countered and balanced like a BFG because that wizard had a slow recharge rate. So while the BFG user is recharging, others get to do their thing. Nothing ever said the group cannot continue with the wizard having spells exhausted, but like your question, the optimal use of the wizard would be having him fully recharged in ability before continuing on.

This is a bit of poor resource management on all players parts. The wizards for using all the spells right away when they werent needed, as well the others for allowing it and then resting just to let him do it all over again.

Also, maybe didnt happen in many of the complainants games, the fighter has the same chance to affect the story and fight if not more than the wizard. The wizard would not be going first in the marching order as a mostly ranged combatant. the fighter or rogue or whatever could easily place himself in the line of fire of the wizard which would prevent the wizard form trying to take control of the combat for whatever reason.

Either way the assumption on your case as a fighter not being able to do what a wizard can do, and a fighter getting int he way of the wizard...really isnt working together for the narrative itself, jsut petty arguing over who is doing the most during combat.

Which is what is all boils down to...the combat and really damage being done as the major aspect of narrative control. Once oyu look at things outside of the perspective of the amount of damage done as a compitition ala Gimli-v-Legolas...then you see there is much more narrative control for all, because Gimli and Legolas really didnt do much of anything outside of fighting. Which was appropriate seeing as they were the hirelings of Frodo.

The main problem still remains that you show, that the narrative that most people talk about is the special move done in combat. Fear of kill stealing or something like that, effectively is where all the problem lies.

Lets say the edition is one in which the fighter gets XP based on things he kills...the wizard would knowingly be doing something against the group and a specific player if trying to kill everything. That being an optional rule as was gold collected being the theif XP bonus, etc means it did NOT have to be included, but was an example of a system to sue to help understand how XP could be given out.

Someone mentions recently PrCs in a thread as to how they were just examples, but people used them wrong. The same thing is occurring here with the XP.

If a player is at the table to say Bob the Fighter is the main character of the story and needs blahblah...then there is already a problem with the narrative control of the other players, as the game is for the story of the GROUP of adventures. If your fighter and wizard against their double wizard team wins, then the PC group succeeded, and the story continues, and the glory and praises to the adventuring team are sung throughout the land and in tales passed down to the future generations.

Since the game is not contained on in combat, and not in a single combat, then looking at just one is missing the rest of the forest for that one tree. You cannot compare the game itself or even try to balance it for a single combat since it isnt contained in just a single combat. That is not what D&D is, and you have to see the bigger picture.

This is why if a wizards player is continuously doing thigns that prevent others from having some kind of narrative control, it is because the player has mistaken what the game is about. They might jsut be there FOR the combat. That means they can still play the game, but maybe better with another group. Many groups will not mesh well with this type of player, when they are playing for the bigger picture.

I still have to question, within the context of the game world itself...how a wizard has all these fighting based spells, and why it was designed as such. That is too much metagame into the world itself. That is why in many games it doesnt exist that a wizard would have the optimal spell list, as that makes the game be a game, rather than a living world the characters are a part of and learning as they go. One part of the game afterall is not letting the game show through to the characters. One of the reasons NWPs were laughed at and optional, because it assumes within this mechanic providing the right numebr of things, a person living in the age of fire capable persons would be unable to build a fire, because they didnt have the game points to spend to buy such a function for their character. So like fire building, the wizard needs to fit. NWPs and specific groupings of spells are optional, and shouldnt be seen optimal.

So what is see is nothing telling of the game, but rather the fighter would have "significantly diminished ability to make meaningful choices in that combat scenario". Later the tables should easily be reversed as the "balance of power", as it were, flows back and forth between the players. If it is NOT flowing, then again the group is not cooperating or working towards the same goal.

[Plebian]

wait, wait, you're arguing that the dude with a sharp piece of metal and almost nothing else can effect the story the same as the old dude in a bathrobe that alters reality by being very well-read just because the dude with the sword can... put himself in the line of fire?

edit: that is so fucking cooperative, man, you really proved your point about D&D being a cooperative game by claiming that by fucking over your companions you can change the story

also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw

[Almaz]

- If he casts a spell to destroy both of our foes outright, he runs the risk of making me as a fighter feel useless, but this time he's directly pinning his hopes on an outcome that doesn't involve an unknown factor (me, the fighter). His spell might work, or it might not - however, if he's highly optimized his character, it will have a very good chance of killing or crippling his foe regardless of things like poor rolls or good saving throws. This tactic has the added benefit of being the most likely to take one or both of our opponents out of the fight very quickly, resulting in minimal risk to me, my friend, our party, and our party's goals.

"Right... or I could just summon a horde of angels."

The problem is that even if you switch it up, say we aren't talking about 3rd edition, we're talking about 2nd edition or something, you still are looking at some point where someone is stuck being a goober because they're a level 1 magic user or something, and asking "So how would I be using my BMX?" It's not even an incidental design quirk, the game designers intentionally would build archetypes to be of varying importance with each other based on level, because they were balancing screen time over the course of a _campaign_, which was a pretty silly idea. At the point where a character concept ceases to be relevant, you might as well just roll up a new character. And saying "Angel Summoner should patronize BMX Bandit and allow him to be the one to win a few fights" results in... well...

"What are those?"
"Sugarlumps."

[shadzar]

they were balancing screen time over the course of a _campaign_

Finally someone gets it! The riddle of steel has been solved!

[Plebian]

they were balancing screen time over the course of a _campaign_

Finally someone gets it! The riddle of steel has been solved!

are you honestly suggesting that trying to balance classes over the course of a campaign is a good idea? because it doesn't even work like that in AD&D or 3e. fighter-types are handy for the first five-six levels and after that they just speed things up slightly and then become completely useless.

when someone has to go out of their way to not contribute so you can do something, that's not fun. at all.

[shadzar]

Again, the game is not a single combat, or limited to just combat. If that is what you think D&D is, then you dont have an understanding of D&D enough to be discussing it or criticizing it.

AD&D then the new D&D that replacement the Men and Magic/et all, is not all about combat, but much more.

I think people trying to encapsulate the game in just combat, would have much more fun with Warhammer, as they would understand it a lot better than an RPG. It has your win condition, your competition, and your single combat.

Again you, pleb, are blaming the hammer for not being made to use with a screw rather than just using a screwdriver. You are so hung up on something, you are unwilling to learn or accept you are wrong.

D&D is a game of undefined length, and as such the balance is up to the players to maintain over the length it is played. MANY cannot do this, thus the reason those groups break up.

Sadly many people don't understand D&D as you have shown, and sadly still for them...they just shouldnt be playing it. I know you want to be part of the in-crowd and say you are playing D&D, but find something you understand how to do instead. D&D is just a bit too complex for people like yourself.

[echoVanguard]

For the purpose of clarity, I'd like to set the ground condition that we are discussing high-level play for the duration of this discussion, as that's where class balance issues are known to be the most severe.

Here is the most important thing. There is NO optimal tactic. D&D doesnt work like that because EVERY variable CAN be taken into account.

Is this a typo? Did you mean to say every variable *cannot* be taken into account? Otherwise, this statement is pretty provably false, since you don't know your opponents' saving throw bonuses and can't predict the roll of the d20.

Also 2 people playing is too few for D&D. This removes it from its environment again. There is a reason that MOST adventures started suggesting 4 player minimums, as this would solve many problems. Too few, and you dont have enough characters for things assumed by the game.

This is also false. The 3.5 DMG gives guidelines for running games with three or fewer players, meaning that it is an expected incidence within the scope of the rules and the intent of the game. While it might be perfectly valid to say "D&D is best balanced for a minimum of 4 players", it's provably false to say that it's not intended for less.

Another thing to consider, is the game isnt really made for long term use of PC-type vs PC-type. You can for special cases, but once those special cases are each time, they are no longer special, and the game isnt made for the PC-type to always be the opponent. It assume the monsters with Hit Die rather tha PC-class are the opponent.

Even if that's true, most monster powers duplicate or exceed powers usable by player characters. The most common high-level opponents are typically outsiders or dragons which possess both high-level spellcasting ability and strong physical defenses and offenses (usually in the form of racial hit dice with huge bonuses to armor, attack bonus, and ability scores). This actually works against your argument, because any tactic which is sub-optimal against a PC-class opponent is intrinsically worse against an equal-CR monster.

So taking on a PC-type is a special case, but also outside of the games environment.

If it was outside of the game's environment, there would be no supported rules for it. Do you mean to say it's outside of the game's intended operating scope? If so, intended by whom? The designers clearly felt it was something that would happen in actual play, and fairly often, or else there wouldn't be quite so many documented rules for handling NPC opponents with class levels in the DMG.

Also you must consider the narrative is not a single combat situation. That is where most of the Fighter v Wizard argument fails. It still lives within a vacuum if only tying it to a single combat situation. One reason being there is more than one combat in a game. Another being, combat is not the only part of the game.

The trouble is that the problem is extensible to any number of combat situations - the independent variable is the amount of remaining resources-per-character, and spellcasting characters have many more ways to opt out of combat if their resources are low. Furthermore, the problems with out-of-combat utility are, if anything, worse than the problems with combat, because spellcasting ability is equally relevant to both combat and noncombat situations (you just cast different spells).

I've bolded a section of the following quote for emphasis.

Consider combat alone, you have more than one to look at. The ability of who does more damage now to further the narrative and allow for control of later narrative means little as later narrative will happen later. Also the wizard expending all resources now, will be less able to do things later.

I know 3rd royally screwed up, and gave casters much much more than previous editions, because negative affects for casters were removed to placate people who didnt like them, so the caster got WAY out of hand. There was nothing left to balance their power such as older days. That being the case, I rarely look at 3rd because it is jsut totally screwed up by trying to fix many problems that didnt exist and in turn created the actual problems it was trying to fix. 4th I dont consider D&D byt a new and similar game with the D&D label glued to it. It is an abomination more than an anomaly...so i ignore it.

In other words, my original assessment was correct - you agree that there are problems with third edition, but you think they are irrelevant to enjoyment of the game - or, to put it another way, you can have fun anyway. Plebian and the others disagree with the subjective part of your statement, as do I.

For what it's worth, I agree that 4th edition is a fundamentally different game from previous editions of D&D. However, if you "rarely look at 3rd because it is just totally screwed up", why are you trying to make the case that its balance problems aren't problems?

another phone book of text that was at this point irrelevant

After this point your post detoured into why second edition was so much truer to the "real" intent of Dungeons and Dragons than third, which is highly subjective as well as a sentiment I do not share. More importantly, however, the point that Plebian and the others were trying to make is that 3rd edition D&D has some class balance issues, which can impair players' enjoyment of the game because their characters feel weaker in comparison to the characters of other, spellcasting players. Your argument does not oppose this in any way - you merely assert that their point is irrelevant because the group as a whole succeeds regardless. In other words, what you are effectively saying is that you do not care if some of the players are unhappy because of class balance issues as long as the core gameplay mechanic of "show up, roleplay, profit" survives.

Please correct me if I have missed anything (preferably in a more concise post than your last), but at this juncture I believe the evidence is pretty resolute. You have asserted A, Plebian et al have asserted B, and I have proved A != B.

echo

[Plebian]

I think people trying to encapsulate the game in just combat, would have much more fun with Warhammer, as they would understand it a lot better than an RPG. It has your win condition, your competition, and your single combat.

except you're stupid and casters can solve problems inside and out of combat better than martials.

Again you, pleb, are blaming the hammer for not being made to use with a screw rather than just using a screwdriver. You are so hung up on something, you are unwilling to learn or accept you are wrong.

stop comparing a system of rules to a simple tool. were you repeatedly dropped on your head as a child?

D&D is a game of undefined length, and as such the balance is up to the players to maintain over the length it is played. MANY cannot do this, thus the reason those groups break up.

oh my god you were

"pfff designers don't need to balance a system, that's up to the players(and by players we mean only casters)!"

as an example: in Risk, if blue player got, as part of the core rules, twice as many armies as anyone else, would the onus be on that player to tone down his game to provide a fun experience for the group? or would it just be a horribly stupid decision on the part of the designers?

Sadly many people don't understand D&D as you have shown, and sadly still for them...they just shouldnt be playing it. I know you want to be part of the in-crowd and say you are playing D&D, but find something you understand how to do instead. D&D is just a bit too complex for people like yourself.

what the hell? are you some kind of idiotic D&D hipster? there is no in-crowd, there's just people playing a game. is there a Monopoly in-crowd? all the cool kids pick hat?

[Psychic Robot]

shadzar vs. Plebian: mouth-breathing Internet gladiators sissy-fighting to the DEATH.