D&D is a cooperative RPG

[shadzar]

Only 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

huh?

Sorry I thought you were asking me a question.

So you don't what playing a wizard in 3rd. See as I said you don't need a wide open space to take out the enemy. You have rays and a good number of spells are just line of sight.

ah. i was answering yours as to which editions i played a wizard, so our only overlap experience comes with 2nd edition.

4th i cant take serious as D&D or an RPG really, as it is more of a miniature board game...

3rd i played only a monk in because that is what they wanted/needed. otherwise i played maybe once to fill in for a caster, but tight spaces did cause problems with the allotment of spells most people chose.

2nd... well i could do anything needed with any class, so i cant be used as an example, but anyone trying to pull some kind of optimal damage wizard found quick they wanted a mulligan on their spells to pic ones that would work in smaller areas more than just a selection based on big open areas for fighting to take place in.

[Wrathzog]

Holding back so that less competent team members can get a day in the spotlight is irresponsible when lives are on the line.

I've seen this before. We had two players who would make the most brokenest characters but would hold back constantly to allow the other members of the party to feel even remotely useful. One played an Artificer and the other was a half-demon of some sort.
This would have worked out well in any other group maybe, but our DM was pretty competitive and would put the party up against harder and harder monsters in an attempt to force them to use their full power. The Tower of Terror proved our downfall, each floor claiming an adventurer in relation to their power level. It came down to the final floor with the two power gamers fighting the Demi-Lich Big Bad, which finally ended with the tower being reduced to rubble and the Demi-Lich and the Half-Demon flying off in opposite directions because, "Fuck this."
On a side note, the Artificer died because he used his turn to buff the Half-Demon. He was either eaten by Tentacles or Disintegrated before he could go again.

[virgil]

Yeah, I had that problem when I was a player, but my compatriots would make extra crappy characters; as my 'brokenest' was a wizard. We had trouble of overly tough fights because of what I 'could' pull out if I tried, even if I just had a warlock or a PF fighter...like that one time when I could've chosen to killed the entire stone giant army with my 'lock and skip stealthing into the sanctum to fight the boss after the rest of the party lost their equipment from the boss's lackey.

[Plebian]

Wizards being broken isn't even remotely linked to their crappy evocation spells; those are system mastery traps for the most part. what makes a Wizard broken is things like rays that require ranged touch attacks to do stat damage, save-or-die spells like Polymorph Other/Baleful Polymorph/Finger of Death, obviate-obstacle spells like Passwall/Overland Flight/Greater Invisibility, and jack-of-all-trades spells like Rope Trick/Detect Thoughts/Wish. and that's a fraction of the dickery allowed to casters.

so if you're playing with a polite group of friends the casters will probably not try to make everyone useless, but the fact that it's there is a really big hit against the cooperative aspect of 3e and 2e. people shouldn't have to purposefully not take abilities to put them roughly equal to the guy who's having to charop like hell to approach the usefulness of a mediocre caster.

[shadzar]

so if you're playing with a polite group of friends the casters will probably not try to make everyone useless, but the fact that it's there is a really big hit against the cooperative aspect of 3e and 2e. people shouldn't have to purposefully not take abilities to put them roughly equal to the guy who's having to charop like hell to approach the usefulness of a mediocre caster.

NO, this still sound like 4th editions crappy approach to design so people do NOT have to actually work together. Just because a wizard has access, via the books, to spells of massive power and damage, doesnt mean the player should choose only them or the DM allow it.

With 3rd and 4th the DM has no say over what a caster can have, unlike 2nd and under.

The thing 4th does that shows the problem of the min-maxing wizard is with what the spells do. You have a spell for flight, it last only long enough for use in combat. as world design, this means that for some reasons wizards never developed longer lasting spells, or they want to call those rituals like some pagan cult dancing around a fire rather than a wizards spell.

How is it in 4th that wizards had only time in the lives to study a spell that lasts only as long as a combat? this ruins suspension of disbelief because for all that studying the wizard only learned spell with which to fight. Take editions earlier than 4th and look at a wizard taking only those high-end optimized combat spells, and you have to ask, where in the hell did this wizard come from, and how did they only try those kinds of spells? Maybe in one game such a wizard would be allowed, maybe one where the world was at constant war, an NPC wizard in the service of a kingdom to help defend it....but every adventuring wizard doing things fucks the SoD of the game. to study these kinds of spells you have to try them, so where the hell was the wizard learning them? who would let them in their city with these kinds of effect going on all the time.

Characters like an optimized fighting wizard with all damage spells, just dont fit in the world, even if the mechanics allow them. That is where the DM must take up his job of making sure the characters fit. The player is "building", used to be called creating cause you designed it rather than just assembled it, a character that doesnt fit with the group.

Again, if the group wants a wizard with only blasts and stuff for damage, and get one, they have nobody to blame but themselves. CoDzilla exists in games because the other players at the table, and the DM allows it to be in the game.

if it is coming down to someone claiming, "but the rules say i can do it", then tell the person to go play with the rules, because the rest of the group says you cant.

LFR an such things have ruined the game in regards to characters because 3rd and 4th try to say everyone can play anything cause the rules say so and the DM has no power over it, and allows any old character to group anywhere even if it doesnt fit.

DMs used to look at a character someone brought in and made changes to make it fit the word, removed items, levels, etc. Now people are creating characters in a vacuum. That is fine that the other party members don't know what is on your character sheet, but the DM then needs to make sure that all the characters will work together as a group as if even a freshly starting group had people coming new to it, as they all are.

take a group of 5 people playing that each make clerics. This would be good in a ethos campaign, but not one where religion was a backdrop and not a real big part of the game world. A job of the DM is to make sure the characters fit before the game starts.

So if keeping your character information elusive form the other players, the DM still need to be able to say the characters function together as a team. The alternative is to make character all together and help suggest things to the other players that their character might want to help cover areas of things others cannot do. This will stop the wizard form doing anything that disrupts the game, and that is what it really is a disruptive player to play such a wizard. Likewise the wizard player wont have to hold back on things to make other characters feel special, because he would have chosen spells that compliment the needs of the group.

2nd edition games for me had the wizard player always being given a short list of required spells that the other party members thought would be needed the next day. for memorizing then, it was not his fault if something was needing instead. the group is climbing down or up or going across a ravine or something that might require risky attempts and chance of falling, you prep feather fall, not delayed blast fireball.

So the problem wizard only exists if the other players allow him to, so simply dont allow him to exist. the game shouldnt cut back on types of spells or something else to make the wizard forced to have only a certain amount or type of spells, let there be lots of fire,, ice, lightning, whatever based spells so a wizard can specialize, just like a fighter can specialize in a weapon. just take responsibility for letting your wizard player be a jerk, not blame the game for giving him the tools to do so.

so don't blame 3rd or 2nd for the wizard having a big list of spells, but blame yourself for letting them use and choose spells that didnt have him cooperating with the rest of the group.

blaming the game for giving lots of options and tools while you let someone abuse them is like blaming the fat man for going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eating the entire buffet. (think im going to eat tons of rice when you got steaks and ham and turkeys and lobster there...shit, i can make a feast off $10 at golden corral!)

[Archmage]

DMs used to look at a character someone brought in and made changes to make it fit the word, removed items, levels, etc.

blaming the game for giving lots of options and tools while you let someone abuse them is like blaming the fat man for going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eating the entire buffet.

Oberoni fallacy much?

Now people are creating characters in a vacuum.

Every half-way decent DM I have played with has told me about restrictions or limitations on character-building before character creation. If no one is allowed to play wizards or elves or know a particular spell or whatever, I ought to be told all of these things in advance, not when I show up to the game with a character I've already put time and effort creating.

For cooperative games to be satisfying, everyone needs to feel as though their contributions are equally important. If some characters or classes just can't contribute equally no matter what their player does, that's a problem with the game. Full stop.

[icyshadowlord]

You know...this reminded me of a funny scenario with the biggest dickcheese of a DM that I had ever met. He seemed fine at first (because it was my first time ever as a D&D player) despite not telling what we can and what we CANNOT be in the game.

Then later on, I began to work on my homebrews and such, and he even promised to let me play one in his next campaign. Then suddenly, before the game started, he suddenly took it back and banned it right off the bat. I was pissed as hell, and I made an objection.

In the end, he turned the whole group against me, called my homebrews shit in front of the whole group and somehow managed to convince them that I am the bad guy and he's the victim of an "oppressive player". I upped and quit the group, and I stopped being pals with that fucking liar.

So, yeah. I think that also brought up the point that the co-operation has to work outside the game as well. Having the whole group think you are somehow a bad player will always make the game itself worse in terms of quality. But yeah, should personal experiences even have that much weight when discussing this topic?

[shadzar]

DMs used to look at a character someone brought in and made changes to make it fit the word, removed items, levels, etc.

blaming the game for giving lots of options and tools while you let someone abuse them is like blaming the fat man for going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eating the entire buffet.

Oberoni fallacy much?

Oberoni fallcy states that excusing a problem with the rules doesnt mean the problem doesnt exist.

Allowing a player to be a jerk at the table, has nothing to do with the rules. Prior to 3rd edition DMs had control of the game and players weren't as much whiny-ass little bitches thinking they deserved and were owed the right to use anything printed in a book. It even states in all editions prior to 3rd to ask your DM first if you can use things.

The game wasnt made for people to work as individuals during any part, but to work together to even make the characters that would be a part of the party.

Oberoni only comes into play when trying to claim the rules work because you can fix them. Nothing prior to 3rd said players had a right to any and all spells to abuse the tools to create a wizard.

3rd states that CoDzilla should be allowed, so saying Oberoni towards someone allowing CoDzilla in 3rd might work, because the DM had little say, even though the books explain to both DM and players alike, that the DM gives final say in 3rd...the company in ALL there materials promoted that the players should be able to use things JUST because they bought a book with them. This extended into the 4th edition philosophy of "core" to say that a DM should allow anything because it works or is balanced or whatever...and forgets that just because it functions well within the game and rules, doesnt mean if functions within the game the DM is trying to run, except that ALL games should be played the one-true-way that WotC says they should be played.

Before trying to use something you should understand it. Wizards prior to 3rd were under the scrutiny of the DM and the other players. The rules aren't broken because they aren't broken, not because they can be fixed. They state clearly that you should work together (all the way up to 4th edition), so it isn't trying to fix a broken rules and then trying to claim it wasnt broken.

When the rules state that the DM has decisions in what the wizard gets for spells, then someone going outside of the rule, cannot have Oberoni applied to it.

so English much?

Every half-way decent DM I have played with has told me about restrictions or limitations on character-building before character creation. If no one is allowed to play wizards or elves or know a particular spell or whatever, I ought to be told all of these things in advance, not when I show up to the game with a character I've already put time and effort creating.

For cooperative games to be satisfying, everyone needs to feel as though their contributions are equally important. If some characters or classes just can't contribute equally no matter what their player does, that's a problem with the game. Full stop.

So because your DMs sucked, it was a fault of the game? The bolded portion is the problem you just prove for me.

Your character was created in a vacuum if you did it solely by yourself with just a few rules from the DM. You failed to work with the other players to find out what might be needed, as well your DM failed to expres that to you, and you also failed to read the rulesbook that states the game is cooperative. You created your character without thought or consideration that it would be working with other player's characters but instead created something for solo use so that you could do things by yourself without the help of others. Do you have trust issues?

Before EACH game the DM should check a new character coming in to see if it will work with the others. These are problems with newer gamers that 3rd created and why i despise it so much that people jumped in head first and not having a clue about how the social interactivity of the game worked, and come from the video games wanting to solo beside other people soloing.

The DM gave you the needed info on the world or what have you. There is no reason to ban 90% of the fighting spells to make you or anyone else create a character to work with the party. The fact you failed to read the book, which each edition quoted portion about cooperative game is presented in the first post of this thread (3.5's thanks to erik), is not the rules failing, or the DMs, but yours for being an asshole and not creating a character made to work WITH the other characters.

Shortening the spell list will in no way teach you how to "play well with others", it only offers spells that are made to work with the game. You must use your own competence to assemble a collection of them to use with your character alongside the other characters.

Nothing prior to 3rd guaranteed a wizard having ANY spell....quite the opposite actually. If you got to choose what spells you got at character creation, then you were lucky you didnt have to deal with chance of spell failure, but afterwards you could fail to learn a spell, and NEVER be able to try to learn it later.

As bad as some of those things were they are there for a reason to illustrate that wizards don't jsut get everything, and even gaining new spells at levels when NOT using chance of spell failure to be nice, was at the DM discretion as to WHAT the wizard could learn by what spells he found along the way to scribe, IF another wizard would share, or what spells the wizard was allowed to research.

This new-age shit thinking has caused much greater problems, than any wizard of the past, where wizard players are just let do anything.

You were a jerk and made a character that didn't fit with the others and disrupted the game for the other players. You are to blame. Learn to follow the rules, cause the introduction tells you what the game is, the rest just ideas on how to make that work.

NOWHERE, does it say your character is the only one in the world and must go it along and is not supposed to help others. EVERY edition tells you, the player, to work with the other players. Your failing to do that, is your failing, not the game's.

[shadzar]

You know...this reminded me of a funny scenario with the biggest dickcheese of a DM that I had ever met. He seemed fine at first (because it was my first time ever as a D&D player) despite not telling what we can and what we CANNOT be in the game.

Then later on, I began to work on my homebrews and such, and he even promised to let me play one in his next campaign. Then suddenly, before the game started, he suddenly took it back and banned it right off the bat. I was pissed as hell, and I made an objection.

In the end, he turned the whole group against me, called my homebrews shit in front of the whole group and somehow managed to convince them that I am the bad guy and he's the victim of an "oppressive player". I upped and quit the group, and I stopped being pals with that fucking liar.

So, yeah. I think that also brought up the point that the co-operation has to work outside the game as well. Having the whole group think you are somehow a bad player will always make the game itself worse in terms of quality. But yeah, should personal experiences even have that much weight when discussing this topic?

I have no idea what you are asking really...

By homebrews do you mean a homemade class? Those things happen. First you were new to D&D and didnt know your butt forma hole in the ground and the DM didnt be clear...both at fault a bit but not your own faults...first games dont tell you everything. he wa likely trying to get you into the game fast to play as many a DM will, rather than teach you everything about making a character. I usually give first time players a pregen.

I think by now you probably learned dont come up with an idea but have no details on it. As your idea the DM probably thought it was good, but when the finished thing came up it was changed beyond what you initially claimed it to be.

you got pissed and started complaining about it, so yeah, you were the bad guy in regards to wasting everyone elses time if it happened during the game session. Otherwise who cares, you can save it for another group or DM. the amount of material created for D&D and never used is much more than that which is used.

you wanted something that the rest didnt want. cooperation isnt giving you or another person everything they want all the time, but to give and take little bits as you go. you really didnt sound like cooperating with the rest by what info you provided. it is not likely all the info, but you sound like a whiny little kid in your explanation about it wanted that toy at the store and making his dad out to be the bad guy for not buying it for you.

so, it really depends on the experience and what the experience is about. Not getting your way with a homemade class, and then causing a fuss about it, is a clear example of NOT cooperating with the group. was your first time playing, so is excusable.

experiences within the same group also tailor how things work, for example maybe things went on in that game that wouldnt allow for that homemade class to fit anymore.

claiming bad DM and blaming the game for it, or claiming bad player and blaming the game for it doesnt really work to good, because you have identified the problem to be the player or DM, so why shift blame to the game?

like the wizard v fighter, if the complaint is "this player is always", "the wizard did this', "the player did it again"; notice the subject each time is the player in question, not the wizard class. o it boils down to finding the right problem and fixing it. people jsut arent apt to accept fault or responsibility these days and always want to find a scapegoat or something else to blame.

Nancy Grace blamed D&D for a couple of parents neglecting their newborn while playing D&D online after blowing an inheritance. First the game was WoW, second the game wasnt responsible the parents were responsible for their own actions.

I dont care for the NRA much at all, but "guns dont kill people, people kill people". The gun is just a tool like a hammer, computer, alcohol, D&D wizard spells list, etc; and as humans are apt to do, they abuse tools.

[Wrathzog]

so don't blame 3rd or 2nd for the wizard having a big list of spells, but blame yourself for letting them use and choose spells that didnt have him cooperating with the rest of the group.

That doesn't make sense. At this point I'm the uncooperative one because I'm not letting another player play their character in the way that they want to. What gives me the right to say, "Hey, dude, I think you need to gimp yourself in a way that doesn't let your character be better than my monk."
In a well designed game, this would never be a problem because Monks would be as viable as Wizards.

blaming the game for giving lots of options and tools while you let someone abuse them is like blaming the fat man for going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eating the entire buffet.

I actually do blame fat people for going to Buffets and eating everything. Self-Control and Discipline are important concepts for developing as a whole person.
Bad analogy, though. If we were to continue working off of it, a perfect world would not have any buffets and no fatties. In a perfect game, the onus of cooperating with other party members doesn't fall on players or the DM to make sure that everyone feels useful. It just naturally happens because the game is well designed.

Shadzar, you need to work on being more word efficient.

[Echoes]

2nd edition games for me had the wizard player always being given a short list of required spells that the other party members thought would be needed the next day. for memorizing then, it was not his fault if something was needing instead. the group is climbing down or up or going across a ravine or something that might require risky attempts and chance of falling, you prep feather fall, not delayed blast fireball.

Wow, you played with some major assholes.

Apparently, letting the wizard play his character is wrong, guys! We need to tell him what spells to prepare, otherwise he might do something besides what we want!

Every half-way decent DM I have played with has told me about restrictions or limitations on character-building before character creation. If no one is allowed to play wizards or elves or know a particular spell or whatever, I ought to be told all of these things in advance, not when I show up to the game with a character I've already put time and effort creating.

For cooperative games to be satisfying, everyone needs to feel as though their contributions are equally important. If some characters or classes just can't contribute equally no matter what their player does, that's a problem with the game. Full stop.

So because your DMs sucked, it was a fault of the game? The bolded portion is the problem you just prove for me.

Your character was created in a vacuum if you did it solely by yourself with just a few rules from the DM. You failed to work with the other players to find out what might be needed, as well your DM failed to expres that to you, and you also failed to read the rulesbook that states the game is cooperative. You created your character without thought or consideration that it would be working with other player's characters but instead created something for solo use so that you could do things by yourself without the help of others. Do you have trust issues?

So the wizard's player isn't allowed to play what he wants? He should only be allowed to take options that the rest of the table thinks he should take? Fuck that. That isn't a cooperative roleplaying experience - that's the rest of the party wanting to play the wizard player's character.

Anyone who thinks that they have the right to tell me how to play my character because it would make them better is a giant tool. Why you think this is a good thing is beyond me.

The DM gave you the needed info on the world or what have you. There is no reason to ban 90% of the fighting spells to make you or anyone else create a character to work with the party. The fact you failed to read the book, which each edition quoted portion about cooperative game is presented in the first post of this thread (3.5's thanks to erik), is not the rules failing, or the DMs, but yours for being an asshole and not creating a character made to work WITH the other characters.

Translation: If you want to do your own thing, you should be punished. Because wanting to do something other than what the group-think hivemind wants is you being a selfish asshole.

As bad as some of those things were they are there for a reason to illustrate that wizards don't jsut get everything, and even gaining new spells at levels when NOT using chance of spell failure to be nice, was at the DM discretion as to WHAT the wizard could learn by what spells he found along the way to scribe, IF another wizard would share, or what spells the wizard was allowed to research.

Translation: What? You want to have some say in what your character can do and what direction he takes? Fuck you! Now go play Mother May I with the DM and stop whining about things like "player agency".

Have I mentioned how much I hate Gary Gygax?

This new-age shit thinking has caused much greater problems, than any wizard of the past, where wizard players are just let do anything.

Again, apparently playing your character they way you want to is bad. Get with the group-think and do what the hivemind says. That is the One True Way.

You were a jerk and made a character that didn't fit with the others and disrupted the game for the other players. You are to blame. Learn to follow the rules, cause the introduction tells you what the game is, the rest just ideas on how to make that work.

See, shadzar, I finally get it. You're a narcissist. You think everyone at the table is there for your own enjoyment and thus anything they do for themselves is them being "jerks" and "assholes".

[icyshadowlord]

Actually, all I wanted was a homebrew race, and I had gone to very great lengths to make sure it was not overpowered or anything. Actually, I even offered to ask him about the campaign world so I would make sure it wasn't out-of-place, to which he agreed before he decided to backstab me. But yeah, I don't even need to worry about Shadzar's response, because it's not like he could insult me after I see him making the assumptions that he did. So, yeah. Also, I have nothing against Shadzar either.

Edit was for additional clarification.

[shadzar]

Actually, all I wanted was a homebrew race, and I had gone to very great lengths to make sure it was not overpowered or anything. Actually, I even offered to ask him about the campaign world so I would make sure it wasn't out-of-place, to which he agreed before he decided to backstab me. But yeah, I don't even need to worry about Shadzar's response, because it's not like he could insult me after I see him making the assumptions that he did. So, yeah.

Edit was for additional clarification.

The sidetrek is kind of misplaced, but fits.

The players dont make their own races. Once a world and game is going you mostly stick to what is being used, or the DM adds new things like races, not the players.

You would want to use a new race in a new game. "backstabbed you", "lied to you", these personal experiences are not as big as you are making them out to be. This is the opposite of cooperation, because you have to cooperate with the DM as well.

The easiest way to introduce a homemade race, is to DM the game. You dont know whst the DM has going on later or anything, and you didnt come at first with a full idea. when you presented the full idea it sounds like you pulled a bait-and-switch. Don't blame the DM when he agreed to let you try, then you tried and failed to make something acceptable. The DM isnt your patsy. NOBODY will agree to a half-assed idea, then the finished product is altered so much to not work.

You wanted your way and didnt get to walk all over the DM...boo-hoo. Learn to work with ALL the other players.

You keep digging yourself deeper. Everything you say is you got the DM to agree to something before they saw it. When they finally saw it they said HELL NO, and you threw a tantrum. the DM wasnt letting you con them.

Another example of trying to blame someone else for your own faults.

Here is an idea for the future. Make your own race and have it ALL written out BEFORE you approach a DM and ask them to include it so they can see what kind of crap it is BEFORE you try to force an answer out of them.

Seriously, you tried to con he DM. Sounds to me like he agreed to let you try to introduce a race, and did jsut that. He never said he as jsut going to let you play whatever.

Again learn the right way to approach it. Have a race ready to show a DM first, then ask if you can use it, just like any other splat material; or DM yourself and include it.

[icyshadowlord]

Okay, I was hoping this would not happen, but again, you think I was automatically in the wrong. The players were neutral UNTIL he started to talk about my stuff to them, and he deliberately presented them in a negative light. Also, I am not going to continue this because I can safely assume that you will continue to point the finger at me instead of also taking my perspective on this.

Edit. Also, calling my ideas half-assed is not really safe when you yourself haven't seen them. Lastly, I have been a DM myself, and so far the players are fine with having my homebrews being in it. And that's because I haven't pulled dick moves on them...

[shadzar]

so don't blame 3rd or 2nd for the wizard having a big list of spells, but blame yourself for letting them use and choose spells that didnt have him cooperating with the rest of the group.

That doesn't make sense. At this point I'm the uncooperative one because I'm not letting another player play their character in the way that they want to. What gives me the right to say, "Hey, dude, I think you need to gimp yourself in a way that doesn't let your character be better than my monk."
In a well designed game, this would never be a problem because Monks would be as viable as Wizards.

No it isnt. You arent telling anyone to "gimp" a character. The other players or DM would be trying to get the player to work with the group and do like the classes are made to do and fill gaps within them as a whole party, so the game isnt made to have everyone be the same thing.

D&D is a class based game, meant to be played as a group working together.

Use your character to fill the holes needed by the others.

Wizard =/= walking nuke factory.

blaming the game for giving lots of options and tools while you let someone abuse them is like blaming the fat man for going to an all-you-can-eat buffet and eating the entire buffet.

I actually do blame fat people for going to Buffets and eating everything. Self-Control and Discipline are important concepts for developing as a whole person.
Bad analogy, though. If we were to continue working off of it, a perfect world would not have any buffets and no fatties. In a perfect game, the onus of cooperating with other party members doesn't fall on players or the DM to make sure that everyone feels useful. It just naturally happens because the game is well designed.

Shadzar, you need to work on being more word efficient.

no, the onus is on the players to not fuck up the game for others.

Disruptive players either change their habits, or get booted from a group.

it isnt any players job to make another feel usefull, but all the players and DMs job to remove the disruptive player, IE the wizard player who thinks they should "steal" all the spotlight or screen time to WIN the game.

If you are playing a wizard for that purpose, even if you dont know it, or a wizard to take the job form a rogue, then you are a BAD PLAYER. The wizard CAN do those things for when another class is missing to partially fill that role, but isnt intended to be the rogue.

If YOU are causing a problem, it is YOU causing the problem, not the game. People again dont get it, blaming the game for giving them the tool, when they are the ones abusing them.

It naturally happens that humans playing a cooperative game work with each other to share the fun since there is no win condition for any single player. Those sub-humans are the ones making the wizards or other characters that disrupt that. Maybe these wizard players are attention whores, or need everyone to always look at them. Go get help. D&D and its players dont exist to affirm your existence, nor are the other players there to simply entertain you!

[shadzar]

You think everyone at the table is there for your own enjoyment and thus anything they do for themselves is them being "jerks" and "assholes".

When you learn to read English, come back, until then, this thread is NOT for you...

The definition for cooperation is in the first post. Go ask your english as a second language tutor to help you read the hard words and come back.

D&D isnt Monopoly where you try to do everything for yourself, and that is the problem i am trying to point out, and so many people prove me right about. People just dont understand what a cooperative game is.

2nd edition has nearly or more than 10,000 spells. If the only thing a wizard could find to pick was spells to try to be the bad-ass wizard, and the DM and other players allowed it, then none knows what the game is about.

Again why i hate the amount of compelte morons 3rd brought into D&D because they dont understand what D&D is...and now D&D has ben changed so that even the designers dont know what it is and trying to fix the wrong problems. Main problem being people dont know what the fucking purpose of the game is. It is NOT, FYI, about trying to make some uber-character to show off with. Pin-pun exists as a thought experiment, anyone trying to play Pun-pun would be seen as just a worthless asshole that shouldn't be gamed with.

IIRC Pun-pun doesnt even function long, but can blow up the whole of the world.

If someone is sitting down trying to outdo another player by making a character, then they simply dont understand the game.

There is a difference between min-maxing and being a munchkin...not that i like either. The ones sitting at the table to play solely for their own enjoyment are the munchkins and jerks and assholes. Learn the life lesson, you arent the only one and damn sure not the most important one at the table.

Seems more people need either a lesson in what an RPG is, or a day care center instead of a gaming group.

[shadzar]

Okay, I was hoping this would not happen, but again, you think I was automatically in the wrong. The players were neutral UNTIL he started to talk about my stuff to them, and he deliberately presented them in a negative light. Also, I am not going to continue this because I can safely assume that you will continue to point the finger at me instead of also taking my perspective on this.

Edit. Also, calling my ideas half-assed is not really safe when you yourself haven't seen them. Lastly, I have been a DM myself, and so far the players are fine with having my homebrews being in it. And that's because I haven't pulled dick moves on them...

"working on" is not complete, ergo at the time you asked to use the race, it was half-assed. You stated so yourself several times that it was NOT completely done because you worked around the concept of the world after initial description of it to the DM, then presented the complete thing AFTER he agreed.

what happened with the DM and the players, i cant say a thing about, but the way you tried WAS WRONG. You didnt have a complete race to present and asked for permission to use something sight unseen. That shit dont fly.

That is why I keep saying, complete something first, THEN run it by the DM and ask permission to use it. Not try to get permission for something sight unseen.

The finished product was not accepted, but you tried to get it accepted before the DM could look at it.

NEXT TIME, finish it first, then let the DM see it and ask to use it.

What happened after you made the wrong approach is moot. Until you accept you approached it wrong, I dont intend to try to mix the problems. Start at the beginning and find the problem. I also cant speak on behalf of your DM or the other players. But from what you have said, your attempt was NOT the right way to do things. If you cannot see your method could have caused the latter to happen, then you wont get it.

Step 1: Have a new race ready
Step 2: show to DM and ask about any revisions needed, and ask permission to use
Step 3: make revisions and repeat steps 2 and 3 until accepted.

This is what should have happened. what oyu say happened is this

Step 1: ask DM for permission to make a new race and use it
Step 2: now make the race AFTER having permission to use it
Step 3: present race to DM and get denied previous permission.
Step 4: start a fight about it.

You tried to manipulate the DM. Sorry, it didnt work.

[mean_liar]

When I saw this thread's title I was like, hey, maybe shadzar is on to something here and he's not just being some strange antisocial grognard that hates anything that wasn't that shitpile of old school ADnD which I love only for nostalgia reasons.

Then, it took all of one succumbing to, "Click HERE to view this post" and I found that no, this was just more typical shadzar shit. Seriously, playing a character as apparently intended by the rules and fucking the game over as a result is an indictment of the GAME and the RULES, not the player.

The argument that all them thar spells are only there to fool wizards into thinking they can use them when really they ought to be tailoring their spells to serve the cripplingly bad PC next to them is insulting. If DnD is a game about cooperation and story-telling, then what's worse for the game:

1. Being utterly negative and telling a player that his by-the-book character is a sign he's a shitty player

2. Trying to help a shitty character gain some traction in the story and mechanics when he's underperforming and is the party joke.

HINT: One is cooperative, the other is confrontational.

Anyone equating an ADnD wizard wisely selecting and using a spell in the Player's Handbook in the manner in which it was intended with Pun-Pun is a fucking idiot.

[icyshadowlord]

Again, you misunderstand. The race WAS FINISHED AT THE TIME I ASKED ABOUT IT. And that is the only thing I am going to say anymore, because this is beyond pointless by now.

[Maxus]

Okay, I was hoping this would not happen, but again, you think I was automatically in the wrong. The players were neutral UNTIL he started to talk about my stuff to them, and he deliberately presented them in a negative light. Also, I am not going to continue this because I can safely assume that you will continue to point the finger at me instead of also taking my perspective on this.

Edit. Also, calling my ideas half-assed is not really safe when you yourself haven't seen them. Lastly, I have been a DM myself, and so far the players are fine with having my homebrews being in it. And that's because I haven't pulled dick moves on them...

Look, what you need to know about Shadzar appears in these threads:

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=120371

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=121602

But, still, good of you to get right to the heart of the matter. You might find it easier to put Shadzar on ignore and train yourself to never read his posts.

[shadzar]

Again, you misunderstand. The race WAS FINISHED AT THE TIME I ASKED ABOUT IT. And that is the only thing I am going to say anymore, because this is beyond pointless by now.

Well that isnt what this suggests:

Then later on, I began to work on my homebrews and such, and he even promised to let me play one in his next campaign. Then suddenly, before the game started, he suddenly took it back and banned it right off the bat. I was pissed as hell, and I made an objection.

It seems to say you started working on them, but didnt have anything finished before you asked.

You seem to be presenting a timeline, but were missing that they were completed BEFORE you asked to use them.

Nowhere did you even mention that you had a completed homebrew race to show him. I can only follow a timeline with the events given in it.

Still does little for cooperation. You didnt get to use something..it happens, things change.

Rule of thumb, dont ask a DM about the next campaign until the current one is done. Only ask for things with the game you are playing BECAUSE things can change.

Nice story in the end about how a group CAN cooperate on some things, and HOW a player may not fit with the group. NEITHER stating then which is wrong or right, but just that not everyone fits in all groups.

Lessons learned all around.

Bad DMs exists, otherwise there wouldn't be CoDzillas in games, because the DM would do his job properly.

[icyshadowlord]

......okay, reading that stuff managed to open my eyes to all the confusion. Too bad I didn't realize that in the times when I lurked around this place. Must have been because I was mostly focused on looking at the section where all the homebrew stuff is. Oh, well. Thanks for the info.

This message was to Maxus, before anyone asks.

[fectin]

There's a fair point somewhere in here that you don't actually need to be all-out optimized to have a good game, and you really can have asymmetric power levels. Really.
Lord of the Rings was a fine story, even though Sam was about as useful in combat as most shrubberies are. He even had the spotlight a fair amount. Stronger characters protecting weaker is a fine trope, and it even works in games that revolve around stabbing dudes and santa sacks.

That's somewhat undermined though, by this:

You think everyone at the table is there for your own enjoyment and thus anything they do for themselves is them being "jerks" and "assholes".

When you learn to read English, come back, until then, this thread is NOT for you...

Followed by this:

Again, this is why iI hate the amount number of compelte complete morons 3rd brought into D&D: because they dont understand what D&D is. and nNow D&D has benbeen changed so that even the designers don't know what it is, and are trying to fix the wrong problems. The Main problem being is that people dont know what the fucking purpose of the game is. It is NOT, FYI, about trying to make some uber-character to show off with. Pin-punPun-Pun exists as a thought experiment; anyone trying to play Pun-pun would be seen as just a worthless asshole that who shouldn't be gamed with.

[shadzar]

1. Being utterly negative and telling a player that his by-the-book character is a sign he's a shitty player

By the book is to work WITH the other players, not try to make your character the entire party.

Still people cant see this.

Min-maxing works in a group of min-maxers.

Rhode Island teachers turning computer cameras on when the underage students were at home undressing in their bedrooms, was a capability of the tool, but doesnt mean the teachers doing so werent abusing the tool.

As i forgot to address in the previous post but applies to this "by the book" character.

Self-Control and Discipline are important concepts for developing as a whole person.

Where are these when people are making a wizard character in D&D?

Oh wait, I can take 400d8 spells and nothing else so the rest of the players have nothing to do in combat, but that isnt giving them a chance to play, so i will show some discipline and take spells other than just damage spells so the other players can play too.

Seriously the wizard doing that is like a ball-hog in sports. The game doesn't say you cant keep the ball and always be the one to score, but doing so says what about you exactly?

removed extra end quote tag that was pooching the format. --Z

edit: glad you found it cause i couldnt that time, thanks.

[fectin]

Seriously the wizard doing that is like a ball-hog in sports. The game doesn't say you cant keep the ball and always be the one to score, but doing so says what about you exactly?

Ball-hogs make the team less competitive, because it scores less overall. optimized wizards make the team more competitive overall. Your analogy is bad.
Also, you have an extra endquote at the bottom of your post.