4th Edition Quirks

[Kaelik]

Strawman strawman strawman. I did not fucking say that. I said the book supports people who think like that. How the fucking fuck many times do I need to explain this? I even said from the start I hate people who think like that.

I'm a classic 'roleplayer, not rollplayer' kind of person.

I think the most damning evidence against Iron Mongler is that he believes Roy is a polite civil productive person and everyone but Roy is a jerk.

[Crissa]

Let the dice fall where they may.

4e just doesn't support that option.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

Let the dice fall where they may.

4e just doesn't support that option.

Huh? How so?

[Fuchs]

I contend that not everyone plays D&D as a competitive game. I for once flat-out refuse to DM a game where the players compete with each other, or where they are in an arms race with me.

[PhoneLobster]

And I contend that that is A) Utterly Irrelevant
and B) Not entirely true.

I don't care if you are purely happy friendly cuddly care bear co-operative.

Not a single bit of that has anything to do with the counterproductive and insulting categorization of gamers into fictional, and stupid groupings that harm the game and harm gamers.

And you aren't competitive? At all? Really? So your characters don't actually attack the players characters and theirs don't attack yours? Really?

And they aren't competitive with each other? So that then means they don't notice or care when the NPC that Jim's character was supposed to deal with easily tears through Jim's Character because Jim's character is shit and walks over and slaughters Sally's character who had been holding her own against her appropriate share of an appropriate challenge?

People notice differences in character power. In part because they are competitive but ALSO as part of being co-operative.

Sally notices Jim's suckitude in part because her character didn't fold like a origami tiger at a toddler convention when faced with a level appropriate challenge (competitive) and in part because he let the team down in a way that punished her for his innadequacies (co-operative).

You can't even BE co-operative IF YOU SUCK.

[Fuchs]

PL, I don't really care about those categories. I agree it's stupid. But I am concerned about the attitude that everyone is supposed to play D&D one way. That's about as stupid as categorizing players the way this DMG does.

What I mean with not being competitive is as a DM, I do take pains to make sure no one is forcing an arms race on me or the players. If a player makes a character that outclasses the rest of the party I tell the player to redo the character so it fits into the party. If a player makes a character that sucks compared to the other PCs I tell that player to redo the character so it fits in.

To be more precise: I take pains to make sure that "level appropriate" means the same for every character, I don't just let everyone build their characters and then let the dice fall where they are. I want everyone on the same page with regards to what is considered acceptable. I do not let one player decide what the power level of the campaign is set at - aka I do not let one player decide what sucks and what does not suck.

[PhoneLobster]

So then you make an effort not to allow material to be introduced into game play that will break the game?

Congratulations. So bloody what?

A) That isn't the conversation you engaged in nor is it really anything to do with "co-operative" vs "competitive" or any other stupid imaginary category.

B) It is however a stupid category in itself because really, what the hell? Is there ANYONE that doesn't attempt to avoid breaking their game? What GM sits down with a player and says "I think your character fails to harm my intended form of game play enough, make it break the game MORE!" ?

And no, you can't point at batshit people who like rifts or something, they just have a dumb idea about what does or doesn't break the game, it's a matter of capability not motive. They still have their intended level of play and they still have an intention to support it. Even a god damn "hey everyone lets see if we can break the rules as literally written!" campaign has a level of play and an intention to support it.

Anyway your entire line is a back handed attempt to paint anyone who disagrees with your position as belonging to a naughty "competitive" camp. Your frivilous and incorrect usage of terms like "co-operation" and "competition" and "Not fitting into the party" are the exact same pieces of language that role play vs roll play morons use.

Your point is no better than theirs because it is THE SAME as theirs. You just changed the arbitrary labels from "Role Play vs Roll Play" to "Co-operative vs Competitive".

And that's not even original because these chumps present definitions so vague and tribal that they have to relabel for every second chump to make the slur, so we've already seen "Gamists", "Munchkin", "Power Gamer", "Rules Lawyer" not to mention the RAFT of dross gamer labels 4E re-enforced and many more.

So good for you. Differentiate your categories in a meaningful way or apologize to all those gamers you insulted by suggesting you have a monopoly on co-operation, game balance and, holy crap, good intentions.

[Fuchs]

As I said, I do not categorize people. My point is that contrary to what Roy said, not everyone plays D&D like he does, with "one loss = one dead character".

I don't play with character death, I don't play a game where I have to make the best character to have it survive.

Call that competitive, or cooperative, or whatever - all I am saying is that you can play D&D without having character death in place. Call it what you want, but that is different from the style mentioned here before, where a misstep means a dead character.

[Fuchs]

So good for you. Differentiate your categories in a meaningful way or apologize to all those gamers you insulted by suggesting you have a monopoly on co-operation, game balance and, holy crap, good intentions.

If you wish to take offense by me stating how I play then that's your own problem. I never suggested I have a monopoly on cooperation, nor insulted others.

[PhoneLobster]

I don't play with character death, I don't play a game where I have to make the best character to have it survive.

That is ALSO meaningless and irrelevant. And in the context of what people were talking about completely disingenuous. Remember it's all "categories are stupid insults" and you are stepping in all "Well I don't know about ROY and his mean competitive gaming but I happen to be in the fluffy happy co-operative category where we are working towards fun!"

No take backs without eating your words. You made a "Roll Player" style slur using Roll Player slur style language IN a Roll Player slur argument. What the fuck do you think it looks like other than Roll Player slur apologetics?

Some irrelevant waffle about how far you set your player failure and disappointment state doesn't make it better.

[Fuchs]

I thought it looked like what it was - a point that not everyone plays with character death and the resulting need to make the best charaters one can. If you choose to interprete it in a way to take insult from it, then you might do well to consider what your post and attitude looks like to others.

You might also want to consider the possibility that not everyone who plays differently thinks everyone else is somewhat playing wrong. Just because I have fun without character detah doesn't mean those who play with it are doing anything wrong.

[PhoneLobster]

No take backs without eating your words. You made a "Roll Player" style slur using Roll Player slur style language IN a Roll Player slur argument. What the fuck do you think it looks like other than Roll Player slur apologetics?

[Roy]

I am beginning to see your points on the issues you label, but one thing that I don't understand is:

What's that phrase? Non sequitor? Or perhaps straw man? Maybe both. Your argument does not address his own, but nice try.

It making you a terrible person to think that two not exclusive things are mutually exclusive in no way precludes the existence of people making exactly that error. In fact it would be rather silly to accuse someone of being a horrible person for making an error that is not possible for them to make.

In other words, your post = Giant Frog.

Do you mean that people in general never pull the 'rollplaying sucks' term? I don't see how I set up a straw man even, seeing as I just wanted to defend myself against being unjustly called retarded for no reason instead of, you know, Kaelik actually having the intelligence to try to make sense of my earlier point.

*facepaws* Your reading comprehension skills are made of Fail. See that quote there? It tells you exactly fucking why you did.

Not everyone plays D&D with the assumption that the DM is actively trying to kill off PCs and only minmaxing and good tactics and good rolls can keep them alive. Losing doesn't have to mean dieing.

Some play a much more relaxed game, where PCs do not die unless the player chooses so. (They might get captured, enslaved, routed, humilated, etc., but the character doesn't (perma)die unless the player wants to change PCs.

Speaking of straw men, this is another one. See, the DM by no means has to be setting out to try to kill PCs for it to happen. He just has to play a two round combat. And you need good tactics and solid characters not to be killed by the Iterative Probability of win spells and full attacks and whatever else taking you out in 1-2 rounds.

Now. Let's say you were somehow able to do your little handwaving bullshit there without cheating. Ok. Being captured is literally a fate worse than death, because anyone who captures you will take all of your gear. Not only is that gear worth more than your life, likely by far but since you could not beat the opposition at full power, you certainly cannot without the gear that is most of your power. Enslaved is much the same, except worse. You don't get to run away in D&D, the enemy is faster. You might get to teleport away, but then you're wide open to being on the wrong side of Attacker Advantage, which the enemy forces will happily demonstrate for you via Scry and Fry. 'Humilated', depending on the context is either irrelevant, worse than death again, or an example of the enemy not having read the fucking Evil Overlord's Handbook. Which means your campaign is irrelevant, because your enemies are not smart enough to actually do their jobs.

But seriously. If you want some coddling bullshit, go play 4.0. But D&D is not for you. No, that's not a contradiction. 4.0 isn't D&D, no more than FF11 is Final Fantasy.

I hesitate to even remotely interact with him, but you know, I think Roy has you pegged, and handled. I'll let him continue to insult you and your STUPID position on "Real Role Playaz!", because his responses are the most fitting.

I mean "Hey yeah sure, but what about the people who want to roll dice, but don't care about the outcome and don't want to hear about shit like "your character hits/misses with sword!." Yeah, because they totally fucking exist.

Ass.

Lols.

I hesitate to even remotely interact with him, but you know, I think Roy has you pegged, and handled. I'll let him continue to insult you and your STUPID position on "Real Role Playaz!", because his responses are the most fitting.

I mean "Hey yeah sure, but what about the people who want to roll dice, but don't care about the outcome and don't want to hear about shit like "your character hits/misses with sword!." Yeah, because they totally fucking exist.

Ass.

'Handle' me? You're fucking retarded, and you're also the load your mother should have swallowed you fat fuck. Get off these boards and stop shitting up legitimate debates like a 4chan troll.

At the Den, we don't really give a fuck about insults, so they're expected as par for the course. Even so, those insults should actually be relevant. His mom has nothing to do with this. Neither does any obesity he might have. Attacking irrelevant things just makes you look like a dumbfuck. Try sticking to the things PL has actually done himself if you want to attack him instead of being irrelevant. Again.

And legitimate debates? Lol, what? This argument started due to your lack of reading comprehension leading to a straw man. It is inherently illegitimate. It is the bastard of arguments. And it's trying to usurp the legitimate line.

Besides, I'm actually having some fun discussing this with Roy. You're a fucking [EDITED] though, and don't understand my fucking position. I've already said that I don't fucking violate Sune's Law or the Stormwind Fallacy, so just get off my fucking case already.

Your position is Giant Frog. Of course he doesn't understand it. I don't understand it, hell you don't understand it. That's why it's Giant Frog and not ya know, something actually comprehensible. Remember what I said about being relevant? His sexual preferences and activities have nothing to do with it either. You're getting closer though, because you're actually talking about him.

And I don't have 'Sune's Law quoted here. Interesting.

Strawman strawman strawman. I did not fucking say that. I said the book supports people who think like that. How the fucking fuck many times do I need to explain this? I even said from the start I hate people who think like that. Also, yes, believe it or not, if you call me retarded I am going to insult you back.

Correct, the book supports dumbfuckery. This should not come as any surprise to you, seeing as this is the Your Actions Don't Matter, Go Grind on the MOB edition.

You are another load who should have been swallowed if you don't see what I'm talking about, Jesus Christ.

There you go again with the yo momma jokes. Oedipus complex much?.

Nice talking to you though Roy, wouldn't mind doing it again in the future. I'm balancing 4e and 3.5 games rather precariously so it's nice to see the views of both sides for me.

That explains a lot.

Strawman strawman strawman. I did not fucking say that. I said the book supports people who think like that. How the fucking fuck many times do I need to explain this? I even said from the start I hate people who think like that.

I'm a classic 'roleplayer, not rollplayer' kind of person.

I think the most damning evidence against Iron Mongler is that he believes Roy is a polite civil productive person and everyone but Roy is a jerk.

First off, fuck you.

Second off, while it is telling he thinks I'm being nice to him (though to be fair, that is true in the relative sense of the word) what he's mostly doing is flipping out to obvious insults, and not noticing less obvious ones. Damage control is very much a productive activity. And this is the Den. No one is fucking civil. If they were it would be some weaksauce forum like the Paizils. It's hardly everyone, as he's only really spazzing out about PL, and maybe you.

PL is soloing most of the drek, so fast forwarding...

As I said, I do not categorize people. My point is that contrary to what Roy said, not everyone plays D&D like he does, with "one loss = one dead character".

I don't play with character death, I don't play a game where I have to make the best character to have it survive.

Call that competitive, or cooperative, or whatever - all I am saying is that you can play D&D without having character death in place. Call it what you want, but that is different from the style mentioned here before, where a misstep means a dead character.

If you are going to quote me, do it right. I didn't say one loss = one dead character. I said losing makes you die OR WORSE. And if you scroll up on this post you'll see some examples of worse. Which I believe were in response to one of your posts. So in reality, you've made your games more 'competitive'. Congratulations. And this while trying to pull a carebear 4.0, where playing the game consists of the DM saying You Win, and then you spending the rest of the session playing smash brothers.

Which means you are Failing for exactly the same reason the Paizils are. Doing the opposite of what its authors intended.

In the name of the 4.Fail, the Paizil, and Jack Fucking Chick.

Amen.

[Fuchs]

I hope that one day you will manage not to find insults everywhere where someone disagrees with you, PL.

[Fuchs]

Speaking of straw men, this is another one. See, the DM by no means has to be setting out to try to kill PCs for it to happen. He just has to play a two round combat. And you need good tactics and solid characters not to be killed by the Iterative Probability of win spells and full attacks and whatever else taking you out in 1-2 rounds.

Now. Let's say you were somehow able to do your little handwaving bullshit there without cheating. Ok. Being captured is literally a fate worse than death, because anyone who captures you will take all of your gear. Not only is that gear worth more than your life, likely by far but since you could not beat the opposition at full power, you certainly cannot without the gear that is most of your power. Enslaved is much the same, except worse. You don't get to run away in D&D, the enemy is faster. You might get to teleport away, but then you're wide open to being on the wrong side of Attacker Advantage, which the enemy forces will happily demonstrate for you via Scry and Fry. 'Humilated', depending on the context is either irrelevant, worse than death again, or an example of the enemy not having read the fucking Evil Overlord's Handbook. Which means your campaign is irrelevant, because your enemies are not smart enough to actually do their jobs.

But seriously. If you want some coddling bullshit, go play 4.0. But D&D is not for you. No, that's not a contradiction. 4.0 isn't D&D, no more than FF11 is Final Fantasy.

Yeah, as I thought, you're an adherant to the "There's one one true way to play - MINE!" philosophy. You can play D&D without scry and fry. You can play D&D without item dependency. You might call it coddling, but nevertheless it's still D&D.

[Iron Mongler]

Back one more time, ignoring idiots who keep misquoting what I say (seriously, do you not notice the apostrophes when I said 'rollplayer'? There is a reason for that. Think about it).

*facepaws* Your reading comprehension skills are made of Fail. See that quote there? It tells you exactly fucking why you did.

Lol no u. I'm starting to see that it was a quote based on an interpretation of something that I never did/thought, hence the mass fucking confusion though.

At the Den, we don't really give a fuck about insults, so they're expected as par for the course. Even so, those insults should actually be relevant. His mom has nothing to do with this. Neither does any obesity he might have. Attacking irrelevant things just makes you look like a dumbfuck. Try sticking to the things PL has actually done himself if you want to attack him instead of being irrelevant. Again.

And legitimate debates? Lol, what? This argument started due to your lack of reading comprehension leading to a straw man. It is inherently illegitimate. It is the bastard of arguments. And it's trying to usurp the legitimate line.

His mother has everything to do with this, bringing another retard into this world. His obesity is not helping him think of anything relevant to the discussion. Stick to things PL has done himself? Like add NOTHING TO THE DISCUSSION? Lololo. This argument started when I said the 1st chapter of the DMG was good, actually (gee, this kinda reflects well on YOUR reading comprehension) leading to a misunderstanding of my position leading to three people tarding out while trying to fucking argue with me about something no one knows anymore.

Your position is Giant Frog. Of course he doesn't understand it. I don't understand it, hell you don't understand it. That's why it's Giant Frog and not ya know, something actually comprehensible. Remember what I said about being relevant? His sexual preferences and activities have nothing to do with it either. You're getting closer though, because you're actually talking about him.

This can't possibly be that hard. I was saying the DMG wanted to help 'roleplay, not rollplay' types of people. I do not believe people like that are doing anything other than 'rollplay', but there are people who think that they are just actors who don't 'rollplay'. Get it?

There you go again with the yo momma jokes. Oedipus complex much?.

The insult has nothing to do with the quality of his mother, it has to do with him even being born. Don't even mention the word Oedipus around me, I've seen Neon Genesis Evangelion enough for a lifetime of that

Second off, while it is telling he thinks I'm being nice to him (though to be fair, that is true in the relative sense of the word) what he's mostly doing is flipping out to obvious insults, and not noticing less obvious ones. Damage control is very much a productive activity. And this is the Den. No one is fucking civil. If they were it would be some weaksauce forum like the Paizils. It's hardly everyone, as he's only really spazzing out about PL, and maybe you.

It's not really that you're 'nice' so much as I can actually discuss this with you without you namecalling (which...is strange given the arguments I see you engage in with other people). I only respond to obvious insults with obvious insults, because they're juvenile shit that only a teenager would actually spout in a debate (even something as wretched as an online debate). It has nothing to do with me being 'angry' (it's the Internet, why bother getting angry?) as opposed to me just responding to trash with trash for the lulz (I was also done with the thread because I didn't imagine the discussion would go anywhere relevant again).

The tl;dr of the last two pages for the conclusion I'd present would be that the chapter should instead mention to engage players by getting them to do the best that they can RP-wise and combat-wise instead of trying to label those as different things. Even if you'd consider the labels right, the book should address how to actually get such different people to work together.

[Roy]

Speaking of straw men, this is another one. See, the DM by no means has to be setting out to try to kill PCs for it to happen. He just has to play a two round combat. And you need good tactics and solid characters not to be killed by the Iterative Probability of win spells and full attacks and whatever else taking you out in 1-2 rounds.

Now. Let's say you were somehow able to do your little handwaving bullshit there without cheating. Ok. Being captured is literally a fate worse than death, because anyone who captures you will take all of your gear. Not only is that gear worth more than your life, likely by far but since you could not beat the opposition at full power, you certainly cannot without the gear that is most of your power. Enslaved is much the same, except worse. You don't get to run away in D&D, the enemy is faster. You might get to teleport away, but then you're wide open to being on the wrong side of Attacker Advantage, which the enemy forces will happily demonstrate for you via Scry and Fry. 'Humilated', depending on the context is either irrelevant, worse than death again, or an example of the enemy not having read the fucking Evil Overlord's Handbook. Which means your campaign is irrelevant, because your enemies are not smart enough to actually do their jobs.

But seriously. If you want some coddling bullshit, go play 4.0. But D&D is not for you. No, that's not a contradiction. 4.0 isn't D&D, no more than FF11 is Final Fantasy.

Yeah, as I thought, you're an adherant to the "There's one one true way to play - MINE!" philosophy. You can play D&D without scry and fry. You can play D&D without item dependency. You might call it coddling, but nevertheless it's still D&D.

Lulz. If there is no scry and fry, you can't even get to level appropriate enemies beyond a certain point. They're basically invincible to you. And there is no such thing with D&D without item dependency. It is not only its defining trait, but for the same reason anything changed so sufficiently so as to not be item dependent has long since ceased to be D&D.

Your dumbfuckery spawned lies aside, the fact of the matter is 'this is how it is'. There IS only one way when it comes to these parts. And it's not 'my' way, because it was there long before I got here. It just is. Your whining and flailing does nothing to change it.

His mother has everything to do with this, bringing another retard into this world. His obesity is not helping him think of anything relevant to the discussion. Stick to things PL has done himself? Like add NOTHING TO THE DISCUSSION? Lololo. This argument started when I said the 1st chapter of the DMG was good, actually (gee, this kinda reflects well on YOUR reading comprehension) leading to a misunderstanding of my position leading to three people tarding out while trying to fucking argue with me about something no one knows anymore.

Yes, Giant Frog is Giant. Also, Epic Fail is Epic. By the way, you've added a negative value to this discussion, so that still puts Mr. Added Nothing ahead.

This can't possibly be that hard. I was saying the DMG wanted to help 'roleplay, not rollplay' types of people. I do not believe people like that are doing anything other than 'rollplay', but there are people who think that they are just actors who don't 'rollplay'. Get it?

Except that it clearly doesn't, or it would not be defending disruptive lies.

It's not really that you're 'nice' so much as I can actually discuss this with you without you namecalling (which...is strange given the arguments I see you engage in with other people). I only respond to obvious insults with obvious insults, because they're juvenile shit that only a teenager would actually spout in a debate (even something as wretched as an online debate). It has nothing to do with me being 'angry' (it's the Internet, why bother getting angry?) as opposed to me just responding to trash with trash for the lulz (I was also done with the thread because I didn't imagine the discussion would go anywhere relevant again).

Since when is lies being bitchslapped down a discussion? Are you an Elennsar alt?

Ignoring you going full circle with the waffling.

[Iron Mongler]

Yes, Giant Frog is Giant. Also, Epic Fail is Epic. By the way, you've added a negative value to this discussion, so that still puts Mr. Added Nothing ahead.

no u. He added nothing to the discussion and flamed me, so I flamed him back.

Except that it clearly doesn't, or it would not be defending disruptive lies.

I agree now that it doesn't help people like that, hence what I came to conclude to in my last post.

Since when is lies being bitchslapped down a discussion? Are you an Elennsar alt? confused

Bitchslapped down? I only responded to your posts with substance, not the ones filled with memes. That only made 20% of your points actually legitimate, but some at least were legitimate.

Ignoring you going full circle with the waffling.

You're an idiot. I've presented my side, and then decided to adapt my idea based on points presented to me. Do you realize that that's the whole point of debate? No, of course you fucking don't, you 'debate' online for the e-penis growth. I did a tl;dr in the first place to actually state what my conclusion would be.

[Roy]

Of course now that he gets it, he's back to whining and flailing about me.

[FatR]

Speaking of straw men, this is another one. See, the DM by no means has to be setting out to try to kill PCs for it to happen. He just has to play a two round combat. And you need good tactics and solid characters not to be killed by the Iterative Probability of win spells and full attacks and whatever else taking you out in 1-2 rounds.

Factually wrong. Because the existence of numerous DMs that have no problems running DnD 3.X without PC deaths happening and without demanding optimization from PCs is an observable fact. Besides equating DnD with "DnD 3.5", you're making assumptions about the way DnD is run, which are not true in many games, probably the most of them. Primarily, an assumption, that the GM not only constantly adjust opponents, to always keep them threatening, he also adjust them to a certain and pretty high benchmark of competence, expected from a party of the present size and level, and not to PCs' actual degree of competence. If, just for example, statblocks of the plot-important enemies are fixed, from the beginning of the adventure, like they are in my current campaign, and do not change depending on how well or how poorly PCs had prepared for them (or how many dudes they bring to battle), while XP awards are given according solely to GM's discretion (which is, actually, the most common way to award XP) the very notion of "load" becomes obviously idiotic.

But most importantly, you also consistently fail to demonstrate how your assumptions make the game better. Hardly anyone fucking cares about playing Murdering Hobos. Most people also don't care about drilling through spell and feat lists to excavate stuff that will allow them to beat feat-rearranged monsters or optimized God-casters (my players, for instance, generally take my advice on optimization, but I cannot and will not force them to read supplements, never mind optimization-related forums, because most of them are overworked enough at their jobs). Neither of this prevent people from running great DnD games. Not that I really expect you to really understand these, because you've spend the last month or three proving that there are no opinions other than "yours" and "wrong" in your world, but this needs to be said.

[Doom]

Let the dice fall where they may.

4e just doesn't support that option.

Huh? How so?

The rustmonster in MM2 pretty much demonstrates in complete and absolute detail "Let the dice fall where they may" is dead in DnD4.0.

[Roy]

Factually wrong. Because the existence of numerous DMs that have no problems running DnD 3.X without PC deaths happening and without demanding optimization from PCs is an observable fact. Besides equating DnD with "DnD 3.5", you're making assumptions about the way DnD is run, which are not true in many games, probably the most of them. Primarily, an assumption, that the GM not only constantly adjust opponents, to always keep them threatening, he also adjust them to a certain and pretty high benchmark of competence, expected from a party of the present size and level, and not to PCs' actual degree of competence. If, just for example, statblocks of the plot-important enemies are fixed, from the beginning of the adventure, like they are in my current campaign, and do not change depending on how well or how poorly PCs had prepared for them (or how many dudes they bring to battle), the very notion of "load" becomes obviously idiotic.

Fail. Without optimization, Iterative Probability will nail you consistently and repeatedly. And it doesn't understand the concept of safewords. If you are actively anti optimized, then it doesn't even take repetition to kill you. It just happens each and every time.

Fast forwarding past your lying straw men.

The comparison is to a set standard. Guess what you're doing? Oh right.

But most importantly, you also consistently fail to demonstrate how your assumptions make the game better. Hardly anyone fucking cares about playing Murdering Hobos. Most people also don't care about drilling through spell and feat lists to excavate stuff that will allow them to beat feat-rearranged monsters or optimized God-casters (my players, for instance, generally take my advice on optimization, but I cannot and will not force them to read supplements, never mind optimization-related forums, because most of them are overworked enough at their jobs). Neither of this prevent people from running great DnD games. Not that I really expect you to really understand these, because you've spend the last month or three proving that there are no opinions other than "yours" and "wrong" in your world, but this needs to be said.

It is what it is. More of your lying strawmen aside, the purpose is to get people at par or better.

Also, what the fuck is with you and the Paizil Fallacies? You should know better.

Obvious Fail is Obvious.

[mean_liar]

Pardon me while I contribute nothing to this thread.

I think the most damning evidence against Iron Mongler is that he believes Roy is a polite civil productive person and everyone but Roy is a jerk.

I think IronMongler is coming around.

Hardly anyone fucking cares about playing Murdering Hobos.

Your attempt to insert decency into this discussion is noted and HATED.

[violence in the media]

Speaking of straw men, this is another one. See, the DM by no means has to be setting out to try to kill PCs for it to happen. He just has to play a two round combat. And you need good tactics and solid characters not to be killed by the Iterative Probability of win spells and full attacks and whatever else taking you out in 1-2 rounds.

Factually wrong. Because the existence of numerous DMs that have no problems running DnD 3.X without PC deaths happening and without demanding optimization from PCs is an observable fact.

I'd argue that every one of those DMs were fudging things to some degree. Not dying in 3.x requires active effort on someone's part; it is not something that you just happen to avoid.

[virgil]

If you are actively anti optimized, then it doesn't even take repetition to kill you. It just happens each and every time.

Did you even read what he said? It is an observable fact that there are games of D&D where the players are unoptimized and not a single one dies after a dozen or more battles. Replying to a statement you made is not a strawman.

Not to say that there aren't problems with relying on that fact, such as the fact that there exists the very real possibility of them suddenly ending up with unfun events (such as TPKs or overpowered PCs) and not knowing why due to pure ignorance; which can easily lead to reactions that don't address the real problem and can very potentially lead to even worse effects.

However, that's not your point. Your point is wanton cries of 'fail' coupled with sticking your fingers in your ears while screaming "does not happen!"

EDIT: Violence in the media, I can see that as true, which does change the argument a little.