Well, first, PCs generally win fights in my campaign (and I assume in most campaigns they generally win, as in, don't go TPK). That means actual capture comes up, well, not that often. Second, as I think I said a few times, my opponents are generally NPCs, not monsters, which makes it rather easy to avoid all the "but monsters would just eat them" stuff. Third, with most of the SoD spells out, and using NPCs, magical gear is not that crucial. Using Tome of Battle helps there as well since even fighters have lots of non-gear-dependent tricks.
Even so, unless there are things involved like legacy weapons, which require a side treck to recover, I don't have many qualms in having the NPCs loot the PCs. Happened more than once at lower levels - back in 2E it came as a surprise to the players when the bandits that had beaten them had not stashed their gear in a chest next to the cell, but used up the healing potions, and distributed the weapons and armor. Easy comes, easy goes - next adventure might get them new gear.
4th Edition Quirks
Moderator: Moderators
Fuchs: You still haven't explained how the PCs can deal with foes without their equipment. How a Wizard can prepare spells without his spellbook. What happen if most of a fighter's power is in his weapon focus line of a rare weapon. You haven't even explained how they can escape their cells.
Getting loads of magical bling over a very short period of time would be obvious and stupid since normally they only get one or two items an encounter if that. Since they probably won't get this bling, they will be seriously underpowered for a very, very long time if captured.
If you can't explain even one capture and escape situation without passing it off as "That means actual capture comes up, well, not that often." then you can't really show that it actually works. If it comes up at all in your games then you must have had experience of it. Although, explaining it at this point is too much of a diversion from the thread.
I'm sure better people than me can explain why the statement "with most of the SoD spells out, and using NPCs, magical gear is not that crucial" is stupid.
Although, thinking about it more, why don't captors in D&D remove spellcaster's tongues and everyone's right hand? It makes them all much safer to transport and keep.
As long as they have access to 7th level Cleric spells they can simply regrow the tongue to interrogate them. Even with a scroll it takes a maximum of 2 minutes to regrow it. And they have no use whatsoever for the right hand unless they want to get them to write something down.
Thinking of it this way, death is better than capture because any reasonably competent evil jailer will remove parts of your body as standard. This takes 13th level Clerics to heal from whereas death can be solved by 9th level characters, if with level loss.
Getting loads of magical bling over a very short period of time would be obvious and stupid since normally they only get one or two items an encounter if that. Since they probably won't get this bling, they will be seriously underpowered for a very, very long time if captured.
If you can't explain even one capture and escape situation without passing it off as "That means actual capture comes up, well, not that often." then you can't really show that it actually works. If it comes up at all in your games then you must have had experience of it. Although, explaining it at this point is too much of a diversion from the thread.
I'm sure better people than me can explain why the statement "with most of the SoD spells out, and using NPCs, magical gear is not that crucial" is stupid.
Although, thinking about it more, why don't captors in D&D remove spellcaster's tongues and everyone's right hand? It makes them all much safer to transport and keep.
As long as they have access to 7th level Cleric spells they can simply regrow the tongue to interrogate them. Even with a scroll it takes a maximum of 2 minutes to regrow it. And they have no use whatsoever for the right hand unless they want to get them to write something down.
Thinking of it this way, death is better than capture because any reasonably competent evil jailer will remove parts of your body as standard. This takes 13th level Clerics to heal from whereas death can be solved by 9th level characters, if with level loss.
I think I explained before that I tailor the enemies to the actual PCs. Meaning the PCs won't be underpowered no matter what.
As far as escaping cells is concerned - take an escape from a movie or book. Could be someone fakes changing allegiance, or the PCs do switch sides. Could be a guard gets seduced, or bribed, or persuaded. Could even be some "Monte Cristo", or internal fighting among the captor.
As far as spellcasters are concerned, I usually use some enchanted bracer or collar to prevent spellcasting. Or some drugs. The actual mechanic varies.
But honestly - didn't anyone ever read an escape scene?
As far as escaping cells is concerned - take an escape from a movie or book. Could be someone fakes changing allegiance, or the PCs do switch sides. Could be a guard gets seduced, or bribed, or persuaded. Could even be some "Monte Cristo", or internal fighting among the captor.
As far as spellcasters are concerned, I usually use some enchanted bracer or collar to prevent spellcasting. Or some drugs. The actual mechanic varies.
But honestly - didn't anyone ever read an escape scene?
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Sure... but that's a lot like saying "Hasn't anyone seen Star Trek?" as far as it means anything at all to D&D. The Dungeons and Dragons 3.X rules are incredibly gear-centric and characters who have their swag taken away are at a huge and semi-permanent disadvantage. That's really what happens. If you're a Fighter and your shit is gone you're fucked within the confines of the rules.Fuchs wrote:But honestly - didn't anyone ever read an escape scene?
There are things you can do about it. One of the major goals of the Book of Gears material was to allow people to lose stuff without being crippled in future adventures. But it's a huge set of house rules. Wealth By Level rules in the official D&D rules are awful. But if you change them you are changing the rules. And that means that any discussion you make predicated on the idea that you are not changing the rules is automatically shenanigans.
A stealth nerf is still a rules change, even if you interpolate it so subtly into the game that the players don't notice you doing it. No one is saying that you can't change the rules. In fact, most of us encourage people to change the rules. What is being said is that if you're changing the rules and then getting all passive aggressive about how other people lack creativity because they can't solve rules issues without changing the rules that you are changing anyway that that's a terrible argument which justifiably pisses people off.
-Username17
I consider the WBL as guidelines, not rules. If not giving a damn about how much the gear a PC uses costs, but only what it actually does in game means I am changing the rules, then yes, I am changing the rules. I'd have to calculate the wealth of my PCs though, to see if I am actually breaking the WBL rules - given that they have an estate, and quite powerful weapons, they might even have more Wealth than their level would demand.
Though to repeat: I do not use many monsters, but mainly NPCs as enemies. That means, given their lack of magical gear, PCs are not that powerless even without their gear. And using the Tome of Battle classes even a naked "fighter" has tricks up his sleeve that can lay waste to enemies - and using desert wind techniques, is arguably better off without his gear than a spellcaster without components. You can get a weapon easier than you can get a spell component pouch. (Not to mention that, as I said, I tailor the enemies to the PCs, so they would not be relativley underpowered.)
Finally, even if we go by the clichee "all your gear is next to your cell, in this chest" cop-out, I'd consider that on the same level as "oh, you'll slowly meet bigger foes you can beat, you won't get curbstomped by the CL20 BBEG at level 5". I mean, if we're all going "logically, you'd maim prisoners", then logically a BBEG would have divinations going, and PCs who defy him once and survive the backlash once would probably rank on the "stomp flat now with massive overkill before they get powerful" list.
Though to repeat: I do not use many monsters, but mainly NPCs as enemies. That means, given their lack of magical gear, PCs are not that powerless even without their gear. And using the Tome of Battle classes even a naked "fighter" has tricks up his sleeve that can lay waste to enemies - and using desert wind techniques, is arguably better off without his gear than a spellcaster without components. You can get a weapon easier than you can get a spell component pouch. (Not to mention that, as I said, I tailor the enemies to the PCs, so they would not be relativley underpowered.)
Finally, even if we go by the clichee "all your gear is next to your cell, in this chest" cop-out, I'd consider that on the same level as "oh, you'll slowly meet bigger foes you can beat, you won't get curbstomped by the CL20 BBEG at level 5". I mean, if we're all going "logically, you'd maim prisoners", then logically a BBEG would have divinations going, and PCs who defy him once and survive the backlash once would probably rank on the "stomp flat now with massive overkill before they get powerful" list.
Is it changing the rules if I tailor the enemies to the actual capabilities of the PCs, instead of expecting the PCs to be tailored to the enemies I pick?FrankTrollman wrote:A stealth nerf is still a rules change, even if you interpolate it so subtly into the game that the players don't notice you doing it. No one is saying that you can't change the rules. In fact, most of us encourage people to change the rules. What is being said is that if you're changing the rules and then getting all passive aggressive about how other people lack creativity because they can't solve rules issues without changing the rules that you are changing anyway that that's a terrible argument which justifiably pisses people off.
Still waiting for an answer...Parthenon wrote:Fuchs: You still haven't explained how the PCs can deal with foes without their equipment. How a Wizard can prepare spells without his spellbook. What happen if most of a fighter's power is in his weapon focus line of a rare weapon. You haven't even explained how they can escape their cells.
[snip]
If you can't explain even one capture and escape situation without passing it off as "That means actual capture comes up, well, not that often." then you can't really show that it actually works. If it comes up at all in your games then you must have had experience of it.
[snip]
[edit]:
Or was this the answer?
You use the clichee "all your gear is next to your cell, in this chest" ?Fuchs wrote: Finally, even if we go by the clichee "all your gear is next to your cell, in this chest" cop-out, I'd consider that on the same level as "oh, you'll slowly meet bigger foes you can beat, you won't get curbstomped by the CL20 BBEG at level 5". I mean, if we're all going "logically, you'd maim prisoners", then logically a BBEG would have divinations going, and PCs who defy him once and survive the backlash once would probably rank on the "stomp flat now with massive overkill before they get powerful" list.
Last edited by Korwin on Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't the WBL-guidelines mean you are supposed to stumble over a pile of gear the very minute you escape your cell? Sure, it's silly, but then again the same happens in books too.
As for combat, lethality and capturing. Capturing is obviously no solution to lethality, unless it is the default mindset. That is pretty much campaign and opponent specific, but I imagine it could work very well in some campaigns, especially those with more factions than just team good and team evil.
As for combat, lethality and capturing. Capturing is obviously no solution to lethality, unless it is the default mindset. That is pretty much campaign and opponent specific, but I imagine it could work very well in some campaigns, especially those with more factions than just team good and team evil.
Murtak
Capture scenes:
One scene was when the Party was investigating a series of kidnappings. That was around level 4 or 5. Due to scheduling they tackled the same group of bandits in two "waves" of half the party each, and both times it was close, but they got defeated. The bandits used paralyzing poison on their weapons, but the fight could have gone either way both times. The bandits looted the PCs, and distributed their gear.
The first try to escape happened when one fighter managed to break his bonds - but he got struck down, since he had not waited until he had less of their attention, and rebound with chains. Then two other PCs managed to slip out of their bonds, free an NPC, and start to escape. They were stopped in extremis by one NPC thanks to a series of natural 1s from the PCs, and decent hits with a club from the NPC.
The PCs got sold as slaves - the bandits were kidnapping people to sell as slaves after all - and ended up in the South, where they escaped after a month by overpowering the guards at the mine the male PCs were at, who then freed the female PCs later. The party pulled a few jobs and bought and stole some gear, then continued to adventure in the south, amassing magical gear.
Another capture happened when the Party happened upon a group of suspicious characters in a festhall, and got sidetracked investigating them - to find out too late that those were adventurers investigating the festhall. The enemies flooded the room they were in with gas, then struck down the fighters who did not succumb after those broke through the door.
PCs woke up in cells, and with some taunts and intimidation a jailer got a bit too close to the barbarian's cell, which allowed that one (he had broken his chains before, but hid that fact) to grab him through the bars and kill him, getting the keys to the cell and a scimitar.
The rest of the PCs were freed, and started to fight their way through the guards, using improvised weapons (chains and table legs) first, then the weapons from the fallen guards, until they killed the priest that was leading the cult.
One scene was when the Party was investigating a series of kidnappings. That was around level 4 or 5. Due to scheduling they tackled the same group of bandits in two "waves" of half the party each, and both times it was close, but they got defeated. The bandits used paralyzing poison on their weapons, but the fight could have gone either way both times. The bandits looted the PCs, and distributed their gear.
The first try to escape happened when one fighter managed to break his bonds - but he got struck down, since he had not waited until he had less of their attention, and rebound with chains. Then two other PCs managed to slip out of their bonds, free an NPC, and start to escape. They were stopped in extremis by one NPC thanks to a series of natural 1s from the PCs, and decent hits with a club from the NPC.
The PCs got sold as slaves - the bandits were kidnapping people to sell as slaves after all - and ended up in the South, where they escaped after a month by overpowering the guards at the mine the male PCs were at, who then freed the female PCs later. The party pulled a few jobs and bought and stole some gear, then continued to adventure in the south, amassing magical gear.
Another capture happened when the Party happened upon a group of suspicious characters in a festhall, and got sidetracked investigating them - to find out too late that those were adventurers investigating the festhall. The enemies flooded the room they were in with gas, then struck down the fighters who did not succumb after those broke through the door.
PCs woke up in cells, and with some taunts and intimidation a jailer got a bit too close to the barbarian's cell, which allowed that one (he had broken his chains before, but hid that fact) to grab him through the bars and kill him, getting the keys to the cell and a scimitar.
The rest of the PCs were freed, and started to fight their way through the guards, using improvised weapons (chains and table legs) first, then the weapons from the fallen guards, until they killed the priest that was leading the cult.
Whatever works. As a DM I am responsible to make sure the PCs are viable. I can either boost them with gear, or tailor the enemies to their current capabilities. I prefer the latter.Murtak wrote:Don't the WBL-guidelines mean you are supposed to stumble over a pile of gear the very minute you escape your cell? Sure, it's silly, but then again the same happens in books too.
"Shades of grey" in my case.Murtak wrote:As for combat, lethality and capturing. Capturing is obviously no solution to lethality, unless it is the default mindset. That is pretty much campaign and opponent specific, but I imagine it could work very well in some campaigns, especially those with more factions than just team good and team evil.
Last edited by Fuchs on Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
No, but I consider it as about equally logical as the "you'll only encounter foes you have a chance to beat, I'll not let the BBEG of the AP face you until you've got the level to face him" assumption so many games seem built upon.Korwin wrote: You use the clichee "all your gear is next to your cell, in this chest" ?
I don't really see why it's so important whether I expect my PCs to be built to conform to some standard or let the PCs define the standard I build the enemies to. The desired end result in both cases are balanced fights.
I don't really care if my group's level X party could face what another level X party could face, as long as I can keep my group entertained.
And, speaking of breaking rules, if a PC ends up too optimized for their level, what do you do? Bring in opponents that violate the CR guidelines?
I don't really care if my group's level X party could face what another level X party could face, as long as I can keep my group entertained.
And, speaking of breaking rules, if a PC ends up too optimized for their level, what do you do? Bring in opponents that violate the CR guidelines?
Last edited by Fuchs on Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Okay, thanks for writing out the scenarios. It makes more sense. But it also shows some huge problems.
The first scenario shows that once they get captured they basically start a whole new campaign with recurring characters as escaped slavers, during which they fight things way under their level. Since it takes so long to escape and they are so far away if they are taken by slavers, the original campaign and plot doesn't really work.
The second scenario doesn't really make sense. How does he kill him through the bars? You have to basically ignore the rules for that to work. But, ignoring the fact that you have to ignore the rules to escape, the fights against the well trained guards and the main priest are stupid: the PCs are way under-equipped and will likely not have had time to prepare any spells. If the priest is the head of the cult he would be way too powerful for them to kill like that.
It comes back to what Roy said: if the PCs got captured when they were at full strength then how the hell are they going to win when they only have some improvised weapons or very weak equipment? Obviously you weakened the encounters which means that the whole cult seems less powerful and their achievement less.
Personally I don't see a huge difference between different ways of having balanced fights as long as the difficulty relative to the level is kept but if fights are suddenly much weaker when you don't have much equipment then it pisses all over believability. This is because the players should be roughly aware of how tough guards and evil cult leaders should be and if they are suddenly much easier then they seem like stupid foes.
So, what the first scenario shows is that capturing breaks the campaign and plot. And what the second scenario shows is that even if it doesn't, you have to ignore the rules and weaken everything significantly which means that the challenge is lessened and their achievement not mean as much.
Both of which mean that capturing ruins the game. And you still haven't explained how Wizards get hold of spellbooks. Either they get the same ones back whatever which can be stupid plot-wise or you replace their spells with different ones which can really piss off players.
The first scenario shows that once they get captured they basically start a whole new campaign with recurring characters as escaped slavers, during which they fight things way under their level. Since it takes so long to escape and they are so far away if they are taken by slavers, the original campaign and plot doesn't really work.
The second scenario doesn't really make sense. How does he kill him through the bars? You have to basically ignore the rules for that to work. But, ignoring the fact that you have to ignore the rules to escape, the fights against the well trained guards and the main priest are stupid: the PCs are way under-equipped and will likely not have had time to prepare any spells. If the priest is the head of the cult he would be way too powerful for them to kill like that.
It comes back to what Roy said: if the PCs got captured when they were at full strength then how the hell are they going to win when they only have some improvised weapons or very weak equipment? Obviously you weakened the encounters which means that the whole cult seems less powerful and their achievement less.
Personally I don't see a huge difference between different ways of having balanced fights as long as the difficulty relative to the level is kept but if fights are suddenly much weaker when you don't have much equipment then it pisses all over believability. This is because the players should be roughly aware of how tough guards and evil cult leaders should be and if they are suddenly much easier then they seem like stupid foes.
So, what the first scenario shows is that capturing breaks the campaign and plot. And what the second scenario shows is that even if it doesn't, you have to ignore the rules and weaken everything significantly which means that the challenge is lessened and their achievement not mean as much.
Both of which mean that capturing ruins the game. And you still haven't explained how Wizards get hold of spellbooks. Either they get the same ones back whatever which can be stupid plot-wise or you replace their spells with different ones which can really piss off players.
Ugh. And we're back to the wankfest of power tripping douchebaggery, Fail, and general bullshit. Every single fucking one of those requires the enemy who easily defeated you, even when holding back to suddenly get passed the Idiot Ball, just so you can actually start playing again at all.
And since it does completely fucking stop the whole game until meteors fall from the sky and induce severe brain damage in the enemies, turning them from highly competent, and many levels higher foes to big dumb MOBs...
If your enemies have not read the Evil Overlord's Handbook, You're Doing It Wrong.
And it's very fucking obvious that's all his scenario is. Because the enemies can apparently afford six digit figure items like AMF collars just to hold a few people in a cell, and other made up DM horse jizz. Yet, despite that they are woefully incompetent. Nevermind that you only get power in this world as long as you have the power to keep it, so if you suck you get killed and looted. And these guys suck.
And since it does completely fucking stop the whole game until meteors fall from the sky and induce severe brain damage in the enemies, turning them from highly competent, and many levels higher foes to big dumb MOBs...
If your enemies have not read the Evil Overlord's Handbook, You're Doing It Wrong.
And it's very fucking obvious that's all his scenario is. Because the enemies can apparently afford six digit figure items like AMF collars just to hold a few people in a cell, and other made up DM horse jizz. Yet, despite that they are woefully incompetent. Nevermind that you only get power in this world as long as you have the power to keep it, so if you suck you get killed and looted. And these guys suck.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
That assumes incorrectly that I have campaign and plot that would be derailed by a mere few months detour. This is not the case. And even if it would be the case, not everyone considers such consequences a bad thing. After all, if they'd been killed the campaign would have been equally derailed.Parthenon wrote:Okay, thanks for writing out the scenarios. It makes more sense. But it also shows some huge problems.
The first scenario shows that once they get captured they basically start a whole new campaign with recurring characters as escaped slavers, during which they fight things way under their level. Since it takes so long to escape and they are so far away if they are taken by slavers, the original campaign and plot doesn't really work.
Currently what I planned as a little side trip before the main plot arc for this season has turned into a "let's change the political establishment and allegiance of this city" plot, which will take taken several months (at one game per week) when finished.
How does he kill them through bars? Reach out, and pull the jailer close, then start choking or breaking a neck. I used grapple rules for that.Parthenon wrote: The second scenario doesn't really make sense. How does he kill him through the bars? You have to basically ignore the rules for that to work. But, ignoring the fact that you have to ignore the rules to escape, the fights against the well trained guards and the main priest are stupid: the PCs are way under-equipped and will likely not have had time to prepare any spells. If the priest is the head of the cult he would be way too powerful for them to kill like that.
Illustration:
As I keep saying, I tailor the enemies to the party, not vice versa. In this case the head priest was not of equal level, part of the challenge was the prepared poison gas trap. If the party had escaped (or spotted) that, they'd have wiped the floor with the Priest and guards (though, given that they were not in full combat gear, but in "out for a good time in town" gear the guards would have been a bit less of a pushover than against fully geared up PCs).Parthenon wrote: It comes back to what Roy said: if the PCs got captured when they were at full strength then how the hell are they going to win when they only have some improvised weapons or very weak equipment? Obviously you weakened the encounters which means that the whole cult seems less powerful and their achievement less.
Why should there be a standard for "evil cult strength"? Why would you expect a hidden cult to conform to what strength the last hidden cult has?Parthenon wrote: Personally I don't see a huge difference between different ways of having balanced fights as long as the difficulty relative to the level is kept but if fights are suddenly much weaker when you don't have much equipment then it pisses all over believability. This is because the players should be roughly aware of how tough guards and evil cult leaders should be and if they are suddenly much easier then they seem like stupid foes.
As I said, if the PCs had assaulted the temple in full combat gear they'd have walked all over the guards, the guards would not have been "suddenly weaker/stronger" - I created those guards as a challenge for nude PCs, if the PCs had evaded the trap that would have been most of the "fight".
Not my campaign and plot, thank you very much. And I consider my players smart enough to realize that when I pit them nude against enemies, they are handicapped, which means their achievement is not lessened.Parthenon wrote: So, what the first scenario shows is that capturing breaks the campaign and plot. And what the second scenario shows is that even if it doesn't, you have to ignore the rules and weaken everything significantly which means that the challenge is lessened and their achievement not mean as much.
Ruins the game for some players, which I do not play with. People who care about achievements and don't accept relative difficulty are not people I play with, other DMs can run much better suited games for them.Parthenon wrote: Both of which mean that capturing ruins the game. And you still haven't explained how Wizards get hold of spellbooks. Either they get the same ones back whatever which can be stupid plot-wise or you replace their spells with different ones which can really piss off players.
As far as wizards go... If I had a wizard in the party I'd probably run that either as "easy comes easy goes", if the spells are common enough to be replaced, or as a case of "ok, we're free, now I need to recover my relic/ancestral sword/spellbook" adventures - and be grateful I already have built in motivations for the PCs to track down the bad guys.
Last edited by Fuchs on Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
What the fuck man? How dare you snub me on that!Kaelik wrote:Hey Phone Lobster, remember that rant about how real roleplayers don't exist? Would you like to present an argument here that all people ever care about achievement? Or shall I?Fuchs wrote:People who care about achievements and don't accept relative difficulty are not people I play with.
Well, you had better do a bang up job.
And to Elennsar/Fuchs: Brace for Epic Smit.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
Pease read what I wrote. I said "People who care about achievements and don't accept relative difficulty." That means someone who doesn't think it's an achievement to beat a monster without gear just because he'd have killed it easily with his full gear.Kaelik wrote:Hey Phone Lobster, remember that rant about how real roleplayers don't exist? Would you like to present an argument here that all people ever care about achievement? Or shall I?Fuchs wrote:People who care about achievements and don't accept relative difficulty are not people I play with.
It's not a slight against people who want challenging fights, it's a slight about people who don't accept that handicaps can make a fight challenging even if the enemies would not be challenging by themselves.
-
PhoneLobster
- King
- Posts: 6403
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
You can do it, he will just try to weasel out of it on the relative difficulty front though. He is couching his claims in the foundations of backpedaling and vaguery. It's a common maneuvre of Basket Weaver types. If you say nothing concrete you can't be faulted... right?
The problem is basically every D&D game ever does "relative difficulty", it's right there in the core rules even. And certainly every gaming group and GM uses it. It's like his initial claims that by excluding material he didn't want in his game made he was somehow being special and different.
The fact of the matter is this guy is a typical Basket Weaver.
He lies and lies and lies. He talks big about how he is special and different and how his group does these better more gentlemanly things. And yet his claims are transparent, when pressured we discover many of his claims are pure bullshit and he admits he doesn't actually do it the way he first said he did.
And many of his other positions are so arrogant it is laughable, "I am in the elite group of gamers who..." and then he is rambling on about something no one cares about because everyone everywhere does that too.
He is seriously now left with, "I try to provide level appropriate challenges" (couched in the weasel words "relative difficulty"). Well, applause for you sir, but you care to point me to a system or gamer that doesn't?
Edit: And Fuchs gets in there with record time on the weaseling out through the (thoroughly retarded) weasel out hole he (thinks he) prepared earlier. Interdicting my own post in the works! That DOES warrant applause, tiny tiny fingertip applause.
The problem is basically every D&D game ever does "relative difficulty", it's right there in the core rules even. And certainly every gaming group and GM uses it. It's like his initial claims that by excluding material he didn't want in his game made he was somehow being special and different.
The fact of the matter is this guy is a typical Basket Weaver.
He lies and lies and lies. He talks big about how he is special and different and how his group does these better more gentlemanly things. And yet his claims are transparent, when pressured we discover many of his claims are pure bullshit and he admits he doesn't actually do it the way he first said he did.
And many of his other positions are so arrogant it is laughable, "I am in the elite group of gamers who..." and then he is rambling on about something no one cares about because everyone everywhere does that too.
He is seriously now left with, "I try to provide level appropriate challenges" (couched in the weasel words "relative difficulty"). Well, applause for you sir, but you care to point me to a system or gamer that doesn't?
Edit: And Fuchs gets in there with record time on the weaseling out through the (thoroughly retarded) weasel out hole he (thinks he) prepared earlier. Interdicting my own post in the works! That DOES warrant applause, tiny tiny fingertip applause.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human Beings who are Human Beings and say stupid redundant bullshit should be shot in the face.Fuchs wrote:Pease read what I wrote. I said "People who care about achievements and don't accept relative difficulty." That means someone who doesn't think it's an achievement to beat a monster without gear just because he'd have killed it easily with his full gear.
It's not a slight against people who want challenging fights, it's a slight about people who don't accept that handicaps can make a fight challenging even if the enemies would not be challenging by themselves.
You are just a weasel, Phone is right. It's not about hating people who have different playstyles, your go to defense/criticism. It's about hating stupid weasels who make bullshit vague claims and backpedal every single post. It's about stupid weasels who talk shit about other peoples play styles but resort to "It's my play style, you can't criticize it." as a defense. It's about someone who steadfastly refuses to admit that changing a rule indicates that the rule fails to accomplish the purpose you had to change the rule to serve.
It's about how incredibly annoying it is to have someone who's sole contribution to anything ever is telling everyone how it's absolutely wrong to declare something else absolutely wrong.
1) The Player list types are bad, don't help solve any problems, encourage backward thinking, and don't describe actual player types at all.
You: You can't say that, because even though they don't describe player types at all, don't solve any problems, and encourage backward thinking, they aren't bad.
2) D&D as a game is very lethal and doesn't really support capturing at all without massive plot problems, changes to the rules, undervaluing the meaning of actions by rendering all enemies impotent to cause any actual harm, and otherwise tearing up the game.
You: You can't say that it's lethal and doesn't support capturing because if you remove all the spells and monsters that kill people, and make all the enemies use non-lethal damage, and change some rules so that non-lethal actually matters, and make every enemy a Schroedinger enemy who would totally have killed the PC if they loose easily, but if they win are dead set on capture, and make the bad guys always heal the PCs of all serious injuries, including effective death effects, and make the people who have the PCs in captivity incredibly incompetent, and weaken the enemies who actually captured the PCs after they do so, and make sure your plot can handle a several month segue:
Well then you can totally have a non lethal D&D game.
Blow that smoke up your ass and choke on it you fucking weasel.
Indeed. Fun to smite though, since his sole purpose in existing is to amuse his betters, aka everyone. Even now, he's doing Paizil brand passive aggressive weaseling and Fail. And he STILL hasn't grasped that if you have a problem with PCs dying all the time, the solution isn't to do worse things than kill them instead. Nor has he grasped that you literally have to ignore at least 90% of the entire game to avoid death, because save or dies own gimps and save or loses own gimps and plain old auto attacks own gimps. And it may even be higher than 90%, since the lower level stuff has a non zero chance of killing anyone who same level stuff has a decent chance of killing. That, combined with Iterative Probability makes his entire game devolve into him tweezering himself off to horse pron while his players look like deer in the headlights and try not to provoke the psycho dumbfuck lest he begin manifesting his mental disorders on them and not their characters.PhoneLobster wrote:You can do it, he will just try to weasel out of it on the relative difficulty front though.
*stuff*
That's not called 'a good game'. That's not even called a game at all. It's called 'smart victim humors crazy fuck until they can get the police involved'. Which since this is a game, it's hard to get evidence. I mean, he could just be a terrible DM right? And as much nerd rage as those provoke, they are not committing any crimes.
Theories as to his motivations for such immense stupidity aside, he does seem to honestly believe that taking some gimp seriously, just because you have been heavily gimped yourself is valid, and just as meaningful as taking down actually credible opponents when you yourself are credible. Which is also standard Basket Weaver Drivel.
So Fuchs?
DIE MONSTER! YOU DO NOT BELONG IN THIS WORLD!
Go back where you belong!
Edit: Lulz, team ninja.
Last edited by Roy on Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Draco_Argentum wrote:Can someone tell it to stop using its teeth please?Mister_Sinister wrote:Clearly, your cock is part of the big barrel the server's busy sucking on.
Juton wrote:Damn, I thought [Pathfailure] accidentally created a feat worth taking, my mistake.
Koumei wrote:Shad, please just punch yourself in the face until you are too dizzy to type. I would greatly appreciate that.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type I - doing exactly the opposite of what they said they would do.Kaelik wrote:No, bad liar. Stop lying.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type II - change for the sake of change.
Standard Paizil Fare/Fail (SPF) Type III - the illusion of change.
I never said anything about the player type lists, much less them being good or bad. Please do not misquote me. It would be very ironic for you who claims to state facts to start with a lie.Kaelik wrote: 1) The Player list types are bad, don't help solve any problems, encourage backward thinking, and don't describe actual player types at all.
You: You can't say that, because even though they don't describe player types at all, don't solve any problems, and encourage backward thinking, they aren't bad.
Is it much less contrived to have the "you always encounter enemies within your CR range" adventures we see, and have BBEGs who never nip aspiring heroes in the bud before they acquire the might to beat the BBEG, right? Isn't it the same as weakening enemies if you build the usual "first the kobolds, then the orcs, then we switch to other level appropriate foes, until finally they can encounter the BBEG!" adventures?Kaelik wrote:2) D&D as a game is very lethal and doesn't really support capturing at all without massive plot problems, changes to the rules, undervaluing the meaning of actions by rendering all enemies impotent to cause any actual harm, and otherwise tearing up the game.
You: You can't say that it's lethal and doesn't support capturing because if you remove all the spells and monsters that kill people, and make all the enemies use non-lethal damage, and change some rules so that non-lethal actually matters, and make every enemy a Schroedinger enemy who would totally have killed the PC if they loose easily, but if they win are dead set on capture, and make the bad guys always heal the PCs of all serious injuries, including effective death effects, and make the people who have the PCs in captivity incredibly incompetent, and weaken the enemies who actually captured the PCs after they do so, and make sure your plot can handle a several month segue:
Well then you can totally have a non lethal D&D game.
Blow that smoke up your ass and choke on it you fucking weasel.
Sounds like another case of "You're having BADWRONG FUN!" to me.
Last edited by Fuchs on Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You are fucking retarded and you need to seek professional help.Fuchs wrote:Is it much less contrived to have the "you always encounter enemies within your CR range" adventures we see, and have BBEGs who never nip aspiring heroes in the bud before they acquire the might to beat the BBEG, right? Isn't it the same as weakening enemies if you build the usual "first the kobolds, then the orcs, then we switch to other level appropriate foes, until finally they can encounter the BBEG!" adventures?
Sounds like another case of "You're having BADWRONG FUN!" to me.
1) Your defense is, "It's not more contrived than BBEGs having better things to do and bigger threats (Like some party of level his CR -4 that he is currently fighting) to worry about." That is laughable, because it is not a defense. It is weaseling out of all the statements you did make in favor of claiming that even though this all started with you telling other people they are wrong, "It's my playstyle therefore I can't be wrong."
2) You are a fucking weasel. You just quoted something that said, "D&D as a game is very lethal and doesn't really support capturing." with "Playing a game that starts with capture by super bosses, and then progresses to beating on little shits isn't a worse game than one that has graduated threats."
Guess what that defense has to do with my statement about D&D? Absolutely fucking nothing.
3) It is more contrived than the other type of game. If by contrived you mean, Is not what the D&D books describe or present.
Cause graduated threats is something that the D&D rules explicitly call out, and the shit you do that's the exact opposite of the rules is not.
4) "D&D as a game is very lethal and doesn't really support capturing." =/= "Playing a game that is not lethal with capturing is wrong."
=/=
That means: does not equal
DOES NOT EQUAL
If you even one more time strawman someone's argument by using the phrase "You're having BADWRONG FUN!" in attempted mockery, I will hire someone to track you down via IP or something, and I will personally tattoo the word "BADWRONGFUN" on your forehead.
Apologize for this shit:
Do it right fucking now.Fuchs wrote:Sounds like another case of "You're having BADWRONG FUN!" to me.