The Gaming Den

While this thread is prompted by a bunch of morons being themselves then running and hiding like the bitches they are when called upon to prove it, let's move past that. I've had enough sperglord nonsense for one day.

Whatever your character is, whoever they are, they have goals. Desires. There will be those that oppose or obstruct those goals and desires, and either you are able to deal with those obstacles or you are not.

This is the very definition of both winning and losing, as if Bob the Barbarian dies to the first Orc he encounters he can forget about ever saving his sister from the chieftain, and likewise if he not only succeeds but so impresses the survivors with his might that they end up helping him later out of respect for a fellow warrior both he, and his player are winning.

Everyone wants to win D&D, because no one wants to play the guy who dies without accomplishing anything even though random chance dictates that this might occur. Everyone wants to be that badass hero, and thereby win.

The only difference between player types is you have some that are willing to work for it... some that will cheat for it, and some that just want it handed over for free. The last tends to involve a great deal of cognitive dissonance of course.

When there's a door in the way and whatever you try to open it works? Winning.
When a Balor attacks you and you kill it? Winning.
When the Commoner wants to be Noble guy gets made a Lord? Winning.

Mr. GC wrote:Everyone wants to win D&D, because no one wants to play the guy who dies without accomplishing anything even though random chance dictates that this might occur. Everyone wants to be that badass hero, and thereby win.

I disagree with this. I had a controversial thread awhile back where I strongly believe that in order for a game like D&D to mean anything occasionally you have to suffer ultimate defeat. And I don't mean watching the lich queen sacrifice the princess while a horde of ettins are grappling you -- I mean in the 'this random group of guards got a string of lucky criticals and your heroes die in a ditch before the third act start' sense, too.

It doesn't and needn't happen often, but it does need to happen.

That's a rather sideways way of looking at that statement, Lago. You can want to win Starcraft melees even if you believe you should suffer defeat about half the time.

Your viewpoint is very limited. Not everyone plays to achieve the goals of their character. I have made characters whose personal goals I never wanted nor expected to never reach, since my goals for the character were different.

Yes, I may make a character who wants to avenge his sister killed by a rival clan warrior, but my goal for the character could be that I want him to outgrow the revenge cycle, and unite both clans.

I also vehemently disagree with Lago's view - if you have enough imagination and mental flexibility to play an RPG past the "kill any red dots, loot everything, level up" stage, you don't need to suffer the ultimate defeat.

The goal of DND is to have fun. Differnet people achieve that goal differently. For some people, "fun" means telling a story, in which case you need pacing and narrative structure - Lago, for example, finds that utter defeat makes the eventual victory that much sweeter. For some people, "fun" means guiding a character through a campaign and building them into a deep, meaningful person. For other people it means running around killing all the red dots. For other people it means using the rules to build the best character. For yet other people it might mean using social encounters in the game as a creative outlet. And there are likely thousands more different definitions. Trying to impose your own definition of fun on someone else is doomed to fail, as is any effort predicated on two people sharing the same definition of fun.

I've always supported optimizing some characters.

Because it's a lot of work to make a D&D character, and I'd like him/her to be around long enough to do something, and that obligates me to try to spec him out to survive and maybe even contribute.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: I disagree with this.

And you're well within your rights to be wrong. Unless you're saying you personally want to lose?

(In which case, go for it, fill your boots.)

Seems to be talking about how there should be groups who just die anticlimactically to a bunch of Orcs from the bushes. Like an NPC in a open world game, who dies to a random encounter, in linear fiction, it'd be like dying offscreen.

Though I guess it is already possible, and given the statistical unlikelihood of it occurring (multiple crits, or 20's on d20) I guess it might actually be fine. Since it's moreso in the realm of "theoretically possible", requiring a likely specific set-up already, for it to occur often, it'd likely would be having a cheating DM, or some kind of super crit-specialist Scythers as unbalanced monsters at work.

I suppose moreso the "winning" gets conflated with competition, and how it's not really meant to be a competitive game with friends. Part of what I like about Tabletop RPG's, being a collaborative effort among the players, rather than competitive, I myself am otherwise not a fan of competitive games/sports so much. Though true, in a fashion, you are somewhat competing with DM on some level.

As for moron prompting, I assume it's the cowboys (or is it knights now) on theRPG site that nobody likes?

Mr. GC wrote:While this thread is prompted by a bunch of morons being themselves then running and hiding like the bitches they are when called upon to prove it, let's move past that. I've had enough sperglord nonsense for one day.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Mr. GC wrote:Everyone wants to win D&D, because no one wants to play the guy who dies without accomplishing anything even though random chance dictates that this might occur. Everyone wants to be that badass hero, and thereby win.

I disagree with this. I had a controversial thread awhile back where I strongly believe that in order for a game like D&D to mean anything occasionally you have to suffer ultimate defeat. And I don't mean watching the lich queen sacrifice the princess while a horde of ettins are grappling you -- I mean in the 'this random group of guards got a string of lucky criticals and your heroes die in a ditch before the third act start' sense, too.

It doesn't and needn't happen often, but it does need to happen.

Just because you can lose doesn't mean you don't want to win. If it's a lucky kill, "random chance dictates that this might occur".

Fuchs wrote:Your viewpoint is very limited. Not everyone plays to achieve the goals of their character. I have made characters whose personal goals I never wanted nor expected to never reach, since my goals for the character were different.

Yes, I may make a character who wants to avenge his sister killed by a rival clan warrior, but my goal for the character could be that I want him to outgrow the revenge cycle, and unite both clans.

I also vehemently disagree with Lago's view - if you have enough imagination and mental flexibility to play an RPG past the "kill any red dots, loot everything, level up" stage, you don't need to suffer the ultimate defeat.

All that changes is how you win, not that you do or are trying to or not.

Aryxbez wrote:As for moron prompting, I assume it's the cowboys (or is it knights now) on theRPG site that nobody likes?

Yes, those guys. Like the one you see here that registered today under a different name just to post an image macro because he knows that here he cannot hide behind the mods and cannot get away with lying, dodging, and the other standard forms of stupidity.

It's probably Ironybringer or Sacrosanct, since they're the prime idiots but there are several other possibilities.

I also disagree with the "work/cheat/wants it handed over for free" part.

The primary goal is to have fun, which may involve accomplishing goals in the game (or failing to do that, but in entertaining ways). But if the goal is to have your character survive fights, does it matter if you achieve that by optimizing the hell out of your PC through the charops boards, beat the GM at rules lawyering aka "Knights of the Dinner table", bribe/otherwise persuade the GM to spare your character through social engineering, or simply tell the GM to not kill your character since he doesn't have to and it's not fun for you?

Fuchs wrote:I also disagree with the "work/cheat/wants it handed over for free" part.

I dunno. It feels pretty dead on to me. I think it's a clever way to distinguish between players that want to play the rules, by the rules. The ones that want to play the rules but fudge the negatives. And the ones that want to basically fudge everything and beat opposition by MTP. I think it's clever and astute.

Fuchs wrote:I also disagree with the "work/cheat/wants it handed over for free" part.

The primary goal is to have fun, which may involve accomplishing goals in the game (or failing to do that, but in entertaining ways). But if the goal is to have your character survive fights, does it matter if you achieve that by optimizing the hell out of your PC through the charops boards, beat the GM at rules lawyering aka "Knights of the Dinner table", bribe/otherwise persuade the GM to spare your character through social engineering, or simply tell the GM to not kill your character since he doesn't have to and it's not fun for you?

I thought we were generally not down with blowing the MC for fun and profit or being in the same party with his invulnerable girlfriend? What happened? Did I miss a memo?

The problem comes when people aren't willing to put in the effort die like the gimps they are and have the audacity to blame the people who are component for their failure. Of course given how much DMs coddle players most people only realize they are gimps after years of playing and then they start screaming like raped apes about "dirty powergamers".

This is why MTP is bad for the hobby gentlemen. When you ask to MTP your way past an encounter you're not being clever. You're telling the DM "waaaaah D&D is to hard let's play pretend instead". Seriously and the OSR folks complain about player entitlement. Reading the DMs mind and sucking the DMs cock are things to be discouraged not embraced.

Way I see it, when we sit together and decide what to play, we discuss what we want to play, and iron out the kind of game we want, not just "D&D 3.5". Deciding what rules we play by is not cheating, or wanting something for free, it's simply setting down what kind of game we will play. Lethality level is one big aspect that needs to be decided beforehand - everyone needs to be comfortable with the lethality and consequences one settles at. And I mean "comfortable", not "wishing to avoid it through any means inside the rules", since that usually leads to "any means outside the rules", or to someone's fun being ruined.

If someone has no fun when his character dies, I want to know that, I don't want him to feel limited to a certain playstyle (poke it with a 10 foot pole, avoid all risks, best don't be present in any danger if possible) and level of optimization just to keep the game fun if he could have more fun otherwise. I especially don't want to have rules discussions and arguments (or worse, arguments about what an NPC should do and not do) to avoid a PC getting killed. For me, that's like trying to solve problems between players in the game, instead of outside the game - a bad idea.

If character death is something players want to work to avoid, then something went wrong already - I want players to have fun in game, not "work". I work for a living, I don't need to work in a game. If something is not fun I shouldn't have to do it to have fun - which includes playing Careful McTactics if I want to play Dashing the Swashbuckler just so I can last longer than 1 session.

deanruel87 wrote:

Fuchs wrote:I also disagree with the "work/cheat/wants it handed over for free" part.

I dunno. It feels pretty dead on to me. I think it's a clever way to distinguish between players that want to play the rules, by the rules. The ones that want to play the rules but fudge the negatives. And the ones that want to basically fudge everything and beat opposition by MTP. I think it's clever and astute.

That wasn't exactly what I was getting at.

Some people want to play the game and either succeed or fail on their own merits. Some people actively cheat (not in the sense of ignoring a result that would kill them, but in the sense of using a psionic power for 343d6 damage). Some people just want to kill the lich king even though they'd be lucky to handle one of his henchmen. And I guess fudging the negatives would fit in here because there will be many of those.

Of these the second group is cheating and should be treated like any other cheater but the third group is the real problem because it involves holding different, contradictory ideas at the same time. Different ideas such as "the party should constantly be dying" and "the party should never die, if they do the DM is a dick". Different ideas such as "the party should be constantly succeeding" and "the party should not have the ability to succeed at anything".

Anything that even remotely encourages or promotes the third group should go fuck off right now.

Lord Mistborn wrote:The problem comes when people aren't willing to put in the effort die like the gimps they are and have the audacity to blame the people who are component for their failure. Of course given how much DMs coddle players most people only realize they are gimps after years of playing and then they start screaming like raped apes about "dirty powergamers".

This is why MTP is bad for the hobby gentlemen. When you ask to MTP your way past an encounter you're not being clever. You're telling the DM "waaaaah D&D is to hard let's play pretend instead". Seriously and the OSR folks complain about player entitlement. Reading the DMs mind and sucking the DMs cock are things to be discouraged not embraced.

No, this is why thinking the DM is doing anything but letting you win is a self-delusion we should get rid of. If a PC wins a fight in D&D, then only because the GM let him, most often by limiting his NPCs to tactics and attacks and builds that do not capitalize on any given PCs weakness.

Yes, everytime you beat a level-appropriate encounter the DM let you win simply by choosing that encounter, and not a higher leveled one, or maybe one tailored to exploit your PCs weakness.

The DM, knowing all the PCs' strengths and weaknesses, is always playing with the handbrake on. It's time all the self-styled D&D heroes learned this.

Fuchs wrote: No, this is why thinking the DM is doing anything but letting you win is a self-delusion we should get rid of. If a PC wins a fight in D&D, then only because the GM let him, most often by limiting his NPCs to tactics and attacks and builds that do not capitalize on any given PCs weakness.

Yes, everytime you beat a level-appropriate encounter the DM let you win simply by choosing that encounter, and not a higher leveled one, or maybe one tailored to exploit your PCs weakness.

The DM, knowing all the PCs' strengths and weaknesses, is always playing with the handbrake on. It's time all the self-styled D&D heroes learned this.

Sigh, just becuase your basketweaving ass can't hadle it whan the monsters don't act like mobs and actually try to kill you doesn't mean that survial is imposible.

Lord Mistborn wrote:Sigh, just becuase your basketweaving ass can't hadle it whan the monsters don't act like mobs and actually try to kill you doesn't mean that survial is imposible.

You're dense. Playing "by the rules", a GM can kill off any character. You really trying to tell me you can build an immortal PC with no weakness? Especially at low levels? Especially at level 1? Maybe facing a higher level enemy (though still within the encounter guidelines)?

How delusional are you, actually? Have you ever DMed? Have your NPCs ever not held punches, not been designed so they can be beaten, instead of being optimized killing machines who actually do wipe the floor with the fodder that are lower level PCs? How many were played like a mongol archer, hitting and retreating after focus firing one PC down, then returning after recuperating? How many actually massed their troops instead of letting a bunch of adventurers whittle them down? How many enemy casters use all the tactics we talk about here?

Are you actually trying to tell me you'd stand a chance if your GM, knowing your PC build, actually wanted to kill your PC off? If so, what kind of basketweaver GM are you playing with?

You're effectively telling me that you play with a GM unable to play in your own "tough" campaign, since he is incapable of making and playing a PC so it can actually handle the kind of challenge you are so fond of. Otherwise he'd also be able to create an NPC or encounter that can handle a bunch of PCs of 2 to 4 levels lower.

Fuchs wrote:How delusional are you, actually? Have you ever DMed? Have your NPCs ever not held punches, not been designed so they can be beaten, instead of being optimized killing machines who actually do wipe the floor with the fodder that are lower level PCs? How many were played like a mongol archer, hitting and retreating after focus firing one PC down, then returning after recuperating? How many actually massed their troops instead of letting a bunch of adventurers whittle them down? How many enemy casters use all the tactics we talk about here?

Mongol archer? Hitting and retreating you say? Interesting.

So would that be like...

Invisible enemies Dimension Door in.
They reveal themselves by firing off spell storing bolts loaded with various damage over time spells such as Creeping Cold, Power Word Pain, Melf's Acid Arrow, Belkar Claws, and others.
They then DDoor away as quickly as possible. And repeat.

This worked once. Then they ran up against mass resist cold, mass resist acid, and a wind wall. Oh and a whole volley of readied actions. The hit and runners that didn't die ran and never returned.

I'd say they handled an encounter played well.

I like how you took his example, but replaced "focus firing one PC down" with "shitty damage over time spells that accomplish nothing".

If NPCs were played like PCs, they would do ridiculous things like DDooring in, tossing a book with 100 castings of Explosive Runes into the middle of the PC party, hitting it with Dispel Magic, and laughing as everyone within 10' takes about 50d6 damage.

That ambush sounds pretty tame. If they hit the party with a bunch of area effect save-or-lose spells, then actually capitalized on their advantage instead of spending a spell slot to give the PCs a chance to recover from their attack, they'd be more threatening.

Spell choice aside, if your NPCs did not expect (or confirm through divination spells) that the PCs, after surviving the first volley, would take counter measures, and changed their tactics accordingly, then yes, you played in a "basket weaving style" according to the definitions bandied around here.

Or would you expect the same "let's do it and repeat it until they are dead" tactic work against NPCs?

It all comes down to this: Unless your DM is playing all his NPCs as you'd play your "hardcore" PC, he is holding back. If he does play them as if they were PCs and the PCs are still surviving, he's inept.

Whatever wrote:I like how you took his example, but replaced "focus firing one PC down" with "shitty damage over time spells that accomplish nothing".

If NPCs were played like PCs, they would do ridiculous things like DDooring in, tossing a book with 100 castings of Explosive Runes into the middle of the PC party, hitting it with Dispel Magic, and laughing as everyone within 10' takes about 50d6 damage.

I like how you took my example, and then just ignored it.

See, when you hit the entire party for around oh... 30 damage a round for the next 10 rounds and then you just fuck off and leave, either they can do stuff to stop the damage over time spells or they can just die, as those place a death timer on them of "soon".

And then you come back and do it again and again and again. Healing items are not going to keep up. Even if you can use them through the ongoing damage.

If you'd prefer encounters where PCs are taken out one by one, there's plenty of examples of that. Say, all of them. Focusing fire is just such a given I'm surprised it's being treated as special.

If the ambushers came in the second time, and weren't all killed off and countered they would have tried something else the third time. They first needed to know they needed to try something else. They were killed off before they could adapt.

If the party had started using countermeasures before they left, they'd identify those countermeasures, and try something else.

Focus fire is easy to counter anyways. Just pack Delay Death. Worst case scenario, someone gets knocked to -200, but is fine after the fight.

Edit: In case it isn't clear, here's what happens when the same happens to a bad party.

Party starts taking high damage over time, the sources leave. They either try to heal through it and die anyways, stand there and die anyways, or run and die tired. Not having those mass resists makes all the difference. Not being prepared for a variety of general situations makes all the difference. And yes, mass resists are good for many things other than suddenly, dots, throw more dots.

And that's the difference between good parties and dead ones.

Koumei wrote:And you're well within your rights to be wrong. Unless you're saying you personally want to lose?
(In which case, go for it, fill your boots.)

The basic idea is that without losing, you can't truly appreciate winning. Like how you can't have good without evil. Good means nothing without something to compare it to. And so on and so forth, insert whatever appropriate analogy you want.

I also subscribe to this theory but I don't really consider it related to the actual topic. Yes, everyone wants to win and the pursuit of winning IS pretty much the whole point of D&D. But you're not always going to win and that's just part of the game.