Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ThatOneMonk 05-02-05, 03:17 PM	Alright, here's the situation... for a long time, almost ever since I started playing dnd with my group, who are all close friends, we've had some, let's say quirks, that we can't quite get out of our system. This is as a group, and is not the problem of an individual player, keep in mind. They've just formed as habits: 1. Power gaming: we use broken stat rolling systems like 4d6 re roll ones to 2 sets 4d6 re roll 1's plus a 'super' roll of a 5d6 re roll ones. We are very used to playing as near gods, and I don't think that's the purpose of the game. We're also used to starting at higher levels. Starting at first level as become somewhat of a rarity... 2. Party molding: Once a campaign is announced, our group immediatly sets to who will be what. "You're gonna be the tank? Ok, I'll be a cleric and you can be a wizard. It's your turn I think..." That's not word for word, but it might as well be. 3. Experience peddling: This is a fault among the gms of our group, and I think I actually started the whole mess. We tend to just throw out experience. There's no calculation involved. If we, as gms, want them to level up, we say "OOOOOk, you guys leveled."... blah... 4. Whining: This isn't that bad in our group. Only a few people do it, but I'm not sure they know who they are. Character deaths are rare as a result, as is specific magic items being given to players. Now that I've stated the problem, here's my solution: About a few weeks ago, I announced that I was going to start an all drow campaign. They rolled up super stats, made the 'perfect party' and were told that they would start at level six. I even suplemented the illusion by posting on the wizards boards about the campaign, just in case some of my players were looking for secrets and such. Call me paranoid... but I am... clinically. As a matter of fact, they will we reading this exact post as an announcement of the actual campaign. They're reading it right now, word for word... ha. Here's what is actually happening. You are to make 1st level characters from the races available to you in the Eberron book. Stats will be 4d6 take away lowest. You are to tell none of the other players you race, class, general information, bra size, etc. Any other questions, you can come to me, because I'm probably right behind you as you're reading this. Right now. ha. The one thing your characters will knowingly have in common is that you are desperate for a job and are on your last galifars. So, what do you guys think? Am I evil? :D
InfinityStar8 05-02-05, 03:26 PM	I love it!
Pallis 05-02-05, 03:28 PM	You absolutely are evil! :eek: ...but having a dark DM heart for a campaign set in Eberron is a very good thing and I reckon your group will enjoy playing these characters as a change of pace and, just possibly they'll end up thanking you for helping them away from their 'standard' PCs. What you've effectively done by getting your players to create their characters in this fashion is to embrace the ethic and tone of the setting; the pulp setting demands that the heroes don't always have the answers to the questions fired at them, that the solution to age-old mysteries are sometimes agonisingly out of their reach, and that they all too often don't have the abilities to defeat their enemies, at least initially. I'll let you settle back with your Book of Vile Darkness now.... ;)
Tanvalis 05-02-05, 03:29 PM	I like it!
Ohtar Turinson 05-02-05, 04:13 PM	Did you mean 4d6, take away the lowest? 'Cause those stats are going to suck if the highest they can get is a 12... (though if that's the idea, go for it- this is within the best traditions of the sinister DM I'd say... more power to you!)
Cutlass 05-02-05, 04:19 PM	Well, I have a bias in favor of point buy systems over dice rolling for stats. I also am having a strange problem in that I don't see what is so horrible with people trying to get a decent group of characters together for the party. So, it doesn't strike me as too far above and beyond the call that a group of people who have played together for a long time will consult one another while they are generating their characters to get a viable party. Other than that, what you have described is more along the lines of what I would categorize as annoying as opposed to evil, but then I'm not playing in your game :D
ThatOneMonk 05-02-05, 06:13 PM	Stats will be 4d4 take away lowest edited
Aneul 05-02-05, 06:23 PM	Pure and delightful DMing evil! Not even the twisted mind of a Daelkyr could so deftly contrive a means bywhich to alert your players to the change in plans and to cause in them as much grief and missery as this surely will!:evillaugh
AvonRekaes 05-02-05, 06:26 PM	The only thing I think is evil is the part where you made them make drow PCs. I know as a player I get rather psyched up about a character I'm making and can't wait to play them. If a friend in my DnD group pulled this one on me, I would just leave the game. At this point I would have no more attatchment to this particular game since the character I had been spending time on will now never see the light of day. If your group isn't quite as attatched to their characters as that (And from the sound of it, it's a good bet they aren't) then I wouldn't worry about being evil. ...By the way, the Evil DM in ME is screaming at me to tell you to use the drow PCs they wrote up as supervillian NPCs.
The Livewire 05-02-05, 06:51 PM	I like it, never had to resort to that though. And shouldn't your drow character -not- want to see the light of day, AvonRekaes? :D I am a fan of point buy myself. it does lead to amusing results, such as the Warforged Artificer having the highest charisma in the party. Doesn't help that a) he's playing him talking like C3PO and b) he used the personal weapon enhancement on himself to get the flaming property. Yes, the flaming warforged jokes have begun.
Gurv 05-02-05, 07:13 PM	Evil? Hardly. That is just touching upon mean. You want to be evil? Take those super-drow PCs they made and make them the major villians of the campaign. That way, they only have themselves to blame for how over-powered the bad guys are. Come up with a good Eberron-style reason for why they have such high stats and power, like some ancient giant-crafted eldritch machine that the drow found in Xen'drik and have used to boost themselves to such awesomeness.
AvonRekaes 05-02-05, 07:44 PM	And shouldn't your drow character -not- want to see the light of day, AvonRekaes? :D Of course he would. As his tribe's up and coming day watch, he has the daylight adaption feat. So nya. :P
MageofMyth 05-02-05, 09:31 PM	2. Party molding: Once a campaign is announced, our group immediatly sets to who will be what. "You're gonna be the tank? Ok, I'll be a cleric and you can be a wizard. It's your turn I think..." That's not word for word, but it might as well be. You are to tell none of the other players you race, class, general information, bra size, etc. Could be an interesting campaign, or they could all choose to play the same class. I frankly encourage party molding, it makes more sense. Why would a group of mages choose to adventure without a fighter, or cleric? They wouldn't. In real life if I adventured then I would pick people to complement my skills, not people who had the same skill set as I do.
ThatOneMonk 05-03-05, 01:20 PM	those super-drow PCs they made and make them the major villians of the campaign actually... bwahahaha :evillaugh
Gurv 05-03-05, 02:00 PM	I frankly encourage party molding, it makes more sense. Why would a group of mages choose to adventure without a fighter, or cleric? They wouldn't. In real life if I adventured then I would pick people to complement my skills, not people who had the same skill set as I do. It depends on the campaign. I certainly agree that given a choice, an adventuring team would pick members who were well rounded enough to deal with all kinds of challenges, or pick challenges that their specialization allows them to deal with. A well rounded group can deal with a variety different problems of equal or lesser EL; while a focused group can handle a much higher EL if it concerns their specialty but might be completely helpless against something that does not. (For those of you who dislike bards, try finding something that 4-5 bards cannot accomplish. It is actually a very frightening way to build a party). But depending on the plot and the DM, many adventures hinge on the idea of a group that has come together by coincidence or circumstance. This is the kind of game where the PCs didn't plan on being PC...it just turns out that they are. When the DM wants to run a game that starts with "You all happen to be on the airship for various reasons when it crashes in the Mournlands. You're the only survivors" it is rather fustrating when the party is immediately capable of perfect synergy. In all likelihood, a group of gamers bringing characters to the table will produce a reasonable spread of classes and races; one way to increase the chance of this is to have each of them bring two entirely different characters and allow them to pick once they know what everyone else is doing. This allows a safe amount of "party molding" without it getting out of hand.
Edymnion 05-03-05, 02:10 PM	I like it. Its called an intervention. The players are all drunkards, you tell 'em you're taking them to a bar, then they wind up in an AA meeting. Its perfect :D
Aubri 05-03-05, 04:18 PM	Well, if you have to ask, then the answer is yes. :devil: That said... Here's what is actually happening. You are to make 1st level characters from the races available to you in the Eberron book. Stats will be 4d6 take away lowest. You are to tell none of the other players you race, class, general information, bra size, etc. Any other questions, you can come to me, because I'm probably right behind you as you're reading this. Right now. ha. The one thing your characters will knowingly have in common is that you are desperate for a job and are on your last galifars. Excellent! Hooray for bait-and-switch! Be sure you check your players' character sheets for creative math, however. :) And the drow as villains... BOHAHAHAHA! :evillaugh Building the characters totally seperately is beautiful--it means the party will likely have some weaknesses they have to play to, and everyone will play the class they enjoy most rather than what benefits the party. Amazing when a simple locked door presents a significant barrier because nobody is a rogue! I wouldn't be surprised if this results in some deeper characters than usual. In my campaign, I went the opposite direction--I had everyone design the characters collectively so they all have a common background. (It helped that they're all the same race, from the same village). However, my party never had a problem with powergaming, so. Edy's got it right--intervention. :) Good luck! Survivors of an airship crash... ooh. The one problem I have with a plot like this is that once they're out of danger, there isn't much to keep them together--one guy wants to go see his wife, someone else wants to get a new mission to Xen'drik, the Deneith heir has to check in with his house, and the halfling is at loose ends after she pays off the Boromars. I rather feel that at that point, staying together gets strained. But that's the roleplayer in me talking--most parties are made of more or less unallied characters, so they can hold allegience only to the party. (Which, of course, tends to be the case with 1st level characters who are on their last galifars--I'm not saying you have a problem, Monk.) I find it rather ironic that, of all the great character ideas I have with contacts and connections out the wazoo, my character in the Eberron campaign I'm in is... an unallied warforged. :nonono: Not that she's not fun to play...
Grabuto 05-03-05, 04:35 PM	...Stats will be 4d6 take away lowest. Love the idea. However, I would STRONGLY recommend Point Buy. Probably 32 point buy since anything less would be too great a change. The problem isn't outright cheating necessarily. Rather, I have seen a lot of people roll up a character and not be happy with their rolls. They finish the character and say to themselves, "I don't feel like playing a Rogue, maybe I'll roll up a Ranger." Repeat until they get the rolls they want. I'm ashamed to admit that once I was making a test character and rolled, like, 17-17-16-15-15-14. I made my girlfriend witness it (Her response: "Whatever.") and then sat on this "Fairly rolled" character for weeks. I didn't use it only because it was too good and I figured everyone would think I was outright cheating instead of mostly cheating. If just one person does this, it essentially forces everyone else to "tweak" their character to stay competitive, maybe when they replace a dead character, maybe when they spill coffee on the character sheet and recopy it (I have seen this). Over time, the arms race escalates and you are right back where you started. Its not even people who are interesting in Munkining and power-gaming. If one character has substantially better scores they set the bar high and everyone else have to compensate.
ThatOneMonk 05-03-05, 05:26 PM	yeah, characters in my group can get rather competitive with each other. ("My character could so kill your character OOC") And I do rather like point buy. However, I also like the randomness of the rolling system, and everyone's stats are rather equal and balanced so far. Anyone curious how this is gonna go after it starts? I'll post on it :P
Gurv 05-03-05, 06:59 PM	The one problem I have with a plot like this is that once they're out of danger, there isn't much to keep them together--one guy wants to go see his wife, someone else wants to get a new mission to Xen'drik, the Deneith heir has to check in with his house, and the halfling is at loose ends after she pays off the Boromars. I rather feel that at that point, staying together gets strained. This is true, and is an issue that I have had to deal with in the past. In fact, I dealt with it in my current game by going the other route this time: I printed up an "Adventurer's Wanted" poster and told the players to create PCs that they thought would answer it. They did so separately, and ended up with a somewhat warrior-oriented party. But they've done pretty well so far. But it is possible to use the "just met" concept. The only difference is that such a campaign should either be just a short series of adventures with a clear ending, or the DM should provide a reason why the characters become inseparable. If you have good roleplayers, they should be encouraged to make strong bonds with the others during the trials of the initial experience that brought them together. It is also possible to have whatever coincidence that brought them together also reveal the possibility of riches and fame (adventure)...maybe the reason the airship crashed was because the Captain foolishly diverted from a safer course because she had a map to some valuable thing lost in the Mourning...a map that the dead Captain no longer has much use for. I once run an entire campaign based around the majority of the PCs being afflicted with a deadly disease that magic couldn't cure, and the only thing that could delay the effects was a potion known only to a powerful and greedy wizard who made them work for the stuff by sending them all over the place. Naturally, they spent most of the time seeking a real cure and only the minimum time doing his bidding. Ironically enough, the system I used for the disease is almost identical to the current rules for drugs, if you made it impossible to throw the addiction...which raises all kinds of interesting ideas for how to use the drugs mentioned in S:CoT.
(Psi)SeveredHead 05-03-05, 08:07 PM	Neat! You're not really making them all drow (Eberron) though, are you? Anyway, I would suggest using point buy. That will solve problems that more balanced dice-rolled stat systems cannot solve.
Save-vs-DM 05-03-05, 08:47 PM	Okay, here's a funky idea for this, taken from the T.V. show lost. They're all airship survivors..who have crash landed on Xen'Drik. Those nifty Drow they all rolled up - those are the main villains. Now the PC's have to survive in Xen'Drik (or better yet, a small island off of Xen'Drik) for the low levels (maybe 1-5ish). This should give them enough time to bond together, so when they finally meet that super group o' drow they can overpower them and steal their airship/balloon/elemental galleon/whatever. Cheers, Save vs DM
D4rkchylde 05-03-05, 09:00 PM	Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
yossarius 05-03-05, 10:31 PM	Before I say any of this, please understand that I don't mean it to be mean-spirited, and I don't mean to offend you. I'll be honest here, I don't really understand the need to do this. My group is a bunch of powergamers, too (maybe worse than yours). I think it's a mistake to approach the game from the direction of "I'm the DM, this is my campaign, my rules, and you'll do what I tell you or you can leave my table." I mean, what will you do if your players refuse to play these (from their perspective) weak characters? If you try to make them, all you're going to do is make them mad at you. These are your friends, and suddenly you're fighting over a game. Isn't the whole point of this game to have some structured activity to do while hanging out with your friends and having fun? This approach says that the structured activity is more important than the hanging out & having fun part. Is it? If you're fed up with powergaming (and I can't blame you for that at all if you are), tell your players so. Say you want the game to go in a different direction, say you want to challenge them, say it's too much work to adjust the abilities of the npcs / monsters in order to be some kind of challenge. But remember this is their game, too. It doesn't matter if the DM is always right if he has no players to lord over. It's also your job as the DM to provide a game where everyone has a good time. If you can't reason with your players where they can come to a mutual agreement with you to scale back the monty-haulism that your game has become, maybe you need a different group. Or maybe I'm taking this subject too seriously. As a DM of a power group, I can empathize with you and I can definitely see the appeal of your approach. There's that certain indescribable feeling that goes with an evil grin, which always comes right after thinking of a particularly devious way to get what you want. It's the single most gratifying part of being a DM. I've had people tell me they watched me have an evil epiphany and it made them afraid of me. It felt really good to be told that. So I can relate. All I'm really saying is, remember these people are not your rivals; they're your friends. Treat them that way.
Gurv 05-03-05, 11:48 PM	Before I say any of this, please understand that I don't mean it to be mean-spirited, and I don't mean to offend you. Well put. And good points. The problem I have is that even though I agree with you about it being a game and the point being fun for all (check my sig), it needs to go both ways. Many people will point to the DM and tell him that it isn't his job to "defeat" the players. But most forget that the players are not supposed to "defeat" the DM, but the monsters. I couldn't tell you how many times I have had to deal with players who try to do things on the sly. Noting on their character sheets that they buried their treasure outside of town, so that no one could steal it from them. Ranking skills without mentioning them or making use of them, and then suddenly doing something that no one had any idea they could do. Just generally looking for things to spring on the DM. Many players will not try to figure out what an NPC is up to, but rather what the DM is planning. If they suspect that the DM is planning something, they will seek ways around it. I have actually had players plan ahead when they suspected certain events would happen so that they were ready to deal with them. Literally causing the adventure to not happen. I don't think that surprising the players, and making them deal with what they themselves have created, is ruining the fun. If it is, then the problems go deeper than that, because they obviously expected the DM to deal with the overpoweredness of it all. It goes both ways, and most players have little idea how hard it is to come up with an adventure and then have it be ruined because they think they know all the answers.
themind 05-04-05, 12:47 AM	You are a genious...an Evil genious. :devil:
Edymnion 05-04-05, 12:55 AM	I'm currently running an online game that essentially started with a bait and switch. I had them make up their characters, with their starting gear, gave them each their own personal session to start the game out with. Each personal session ended the same way. They were overpowered by the thieve's guild they had been getting in the way of. Then everybody was together, when their characters woke up in cages, on a ship. Yup, you guessed it, slaves. Luckily, they had a rogue (I actually made sure to only accept characters that would make a workable party, especially since there are only 3 of them), and he managed to smash up a piece of wood to get some splinters sturdy enough to serve as improvised lock picks. They had to work together to overpower the guards, make it on deck, and then ended up using supply barrels from the ship's hold to swim ashore on. And of course, they were in a new land by that point (I drugged the food to 'em to keep them unconcious for an unspecified amount of time), and essentially, they HAD to stick together, because the party members were the only people they knew there. And the players say they loved it. I drugged them, I stripped them damn near naked (had to take whatever weapons/armor they could find from the guards, who were human, which left out the gnome rogue), and made them rely on their wits to survive. It was a bait and switch that pretty much ruined any equipment dependant techniques they were going to rely on (at least until they got to shore, won the trust of the people there, and got some equipment made for them). And its been great so far, so don't worry about tricking them. As long as you've got a good game set up, they'll forgive you. They might even welcome the change of pace, mine did :)
stembolt 05-04-05, 01:43 AM	Lying to your PCs is bad, particularly the way you did it. So yes that sucks, from a player point of view. You should have been honest about what kind of game you were going to run because lying got you nothing. Think about it. Why didn’t you just have the PCs make the right characters in the first place? What did that gain you other than ill will? As for party molding, so what? Is the problem that the groups are too well balanced and effective? The problem with this idea of yours (not consulting each other) is twofold. One If two players make similar characters one will inevitably be better than the other. And two the party may end up without something vital, like healing or spellcasting. Your Players really should be informed what kind of things to expect. That brings me to equipment. If you are going to start the PCs with no equipment you should tell them (directly or indirectly). Otherwise that guy with EWP and WF bastard sword is going to be ****** when he is stuck with a crappy character. I would also like to point out that you have certainly done nothing to address points 3 and 4. In fact I expect whining will hit a new peak. Evil? No. Misguided? Yes.
ThatOneMonk 05-04-05, 10:40 AM	well, for those of you who are wondering what's come of this so far (i.e. whether my pcs hate me and want me linched or not), it turns out that they love the idea. The game is about fun, which is what we've been missing due to rule abuse and powergaming. They're way more excited about this campaign than the fake drow one (we actually like drow, so it's not because of anti-drow sentiment). It's a chance for a clean slate, to play the game in its original spririt. That's why they like.
Gurv 05-04-05, 11:26 AM	As for party molding, so what? Is the problem that the groups are too well balanced and effective? The problem with this idea of yours (not consulting each other) is twofold. One If two players make similar characters one will inevitably be better than the other. And two the party may end up without something vital, like healing or spellcasting. Your Players really should be informed what kind of things to expect. Often, the challenge to this game (and what is a game but a challenge?) is to deal with the lot that you are given. In OneMonk's group (as with many groups described as powergaming), it seems that the players have forgotten that goal; the start with so much it takes the challenge away before a single encounter. The game is about problem solving, with some random dice thrown in. In this scenerio, part of the problem is that the PCs are not tailored to the situation. A major part of the challenge is that they are be missing something vital: the chance to plan for what lies ahead. How many movies have you seen where all the hero's problems could have been avoiding if he had a cell phone? A gun? Amazing stories start when something happens that you are not ready for, but you deal with it anyway, improvising if you need to. "Your Players really should be informed what kind of things to expect." Wha...!? How do you justify this statement? I mean, I can understand it if this were the type of game where the heroes, from the Order of the X, have been hired to deal with Problem Y. But that isn't what every adventure is. This isn't Lord of the Rings (they have their own RPG), where everyone knew that getting the One Ring to Mount Doom would be nearly suicidal and had the chance to back out and equip as best they could. This sounds more like A Knight's Tale, where circumstances have left the PCs with little more than what they can lay claim to. Point 3 is easily dealt with by the DM making a serious effort to follow the XP rules. Use this Encounter Calculator (http://www.geocities.com/edymnionii/EPLvsEL.html) found in Edymnion's sig. It gives a couple different options for handing XP out, and does all the messy math for groups with different level characters. Point 4 he basically said wasn't a real problem with his group, with a few exceptions. If this makes them howl in outrage, then obviously it wasn't a good idea and should be abandoned. But I expect it will be more a matter of a few shocked "What! You're kidding!" remarks before they settle down and try it the new way. If the game is any good, then it won't matter whether the PCs have high stats or not.
Aubri 05-04-05, 11:46 AM	As for party molding, so what? Is the problem that the groups are too well balanced and effective? The problem with this idea of yours (not consulting each other) is twofold. One If two players make similar characters one will inevitably be better than the other. And two the party may end up without something vital, like healing or spellcasting. Your Players really should be informed what kind of things to expect. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have a thief/warrior/mage/healer team, but always having an answer to any problem can get boring. These players seem to have replaced RP fun with powergaming fun, and while that's not NECESSARILY bad, it can be very frustrating to DM for. By randomizing the party, they're not necessarily prepared for every eventuality, which can be a LOT of fun--without a rogue, a simple trap becomes a barrier that takes creativity and teamwork to bypass. The DM has to be sure he doesn't penalize the PCs for not having the proper class, of course, but I don't see that being a problem here. For example--which is more fun to watch? James Bond, who just happens to have the perfect tool for every plot twist, or Indiana Jones, who has to make do with what he's got and still manages to pull through?
Kennian 05-04-05, 05:40 PM	hummm.... i've never seen the problem with power gameing and alot of your problems stem from bad players, ie the cheating... not telling you're DM that you're buying/doing/speaking to someone is just stupid... as for power gameing. for alot of people part of the fun is comeing up with outlandish chars....i have to put myself on a leash...and even then sometimes i come up with wierd heavy hitters...my Samurai /fighter/blademaster can kill you're average 20th level fighter in one round :P my thought is you got lucky...and i'm sure you're players are going to get bored with mediocre chars. should the game last long enough to reach 20th level they'll find out that those pathetic stats wont get them any of the epic feats, at all. i mean, the average of 4d6 is 12...you're sposed to be heros, not joe average :P just the thoughts of a addicted power gamer. then..i've never had a DM who couldnt chalange a party...no matter what was in it
Gurv 05-04-05, 06:21 PM	as for power gameing. for alot of people part of the fun is comeing up with outlandish chars....i have to put myself on a leash...and even then sometimes i come up with wierd heavy hitters...my Samurai /fighter/blademaster can kill you're average 20th level fighter in one round :P Powergaming is fun. But only if that is what everyone intends to do. I myself have a game in mind for the near future that is going to start near-epic and go from there (using Edymnion's interesting Xen'drik/Mournlands idea). The problem with powergaming in other cases is that it breaks some of the balances in the game. A character built using 28 point buy can pass the save DC from equal CR monsters 50-70% of the time, and the monster can do the same against you. But if your lowest stat is 15 and they go up from there, you'll almost never fail a save against that creature. The solution seems simple (fight higher CR monsters), but it isn't so simple. A monster with save DC that will be the right challenge may now have an AC, hit points, or attacks that are way out of your league despite the high stats. In general, everything has to advance together, so having higher stats than the game expects at low level actually hurts you, because the DM has to find a way to compensate. The save DCs is only an example; it actually applies to anything that makes it so that you can dish out more than you recieve. my thought is you got lucky...and i'm sure you're players are going to get bored with mediocre chars. should the game last long enough to reach 20th level they'll find out that those pathetic stats wont get them any of the epic feats, at all. i mean, the average of 4d6 is 12...you're sposed to be heros, not joe average :P You know, even an epic character isn't supposed to be able to qualify for all of those feats. What is the point of having prerequisites at all if it is assumed that they can be aquired ASAP? And 12 is not "joe average". Joe Average has a 10, and doesn't get a PC class at all.
stembolt 05-04-05, 07:53 PM	Often, the challenge to this game (and what is a game but a challenge?) is to deal with the lot that you are given. True, but either the players or the DM must take that into account. A barrier bypassed with dispel magic is an easy obstacle to a well rounded group and an impossible one to a low magic group (fighters and rogues for example). So what do you do as a DM? Either the party must have a spellcaster, or the DM must leave that out. Wha...!? How do you justify this statement? I mean, I can understand it if this were the type of game where the heroes, from the Order of the X, have been hired to deal with Problem Y. How do you justify your ignorance of that statement? If you plan on running a diplomatic campaign and your PCs are all half orc barbarians, don’t you think that they will be ill suited for the campaign? It's not necessarily a bad thing to have a thief/warrior/mage/healer team, but always having an answer to any problem can get boring. I have never run into a group that had even the majority of “answers.” But I have run into groups that had almost none. Guess which is more fun?
Gurv 05-04-05, 10:47 PM	True, but either the players or the DM must take that into account. A barrier bypassed with dispel magic is an easy obstacle to a well rounded group and an impossible one to a low magic group (fighters and rogues for example). So what do you do as a DM? Either the party must have a spellcaster, or the DM must leave that out. Exactly. You either leave it out, or realize that the party may not be able to deal with it. Just like you would if they were low-level, or had expended most of their resources, or whatever other reason dispel magic might not be available. I didn't say that it was foolproof, or that the players would be able to accomplish all the same things that a well-rounded group could. Instead, I point to the fact that there might be things that they have to avoid, or deal with differently, as a refreshing change of pace. How do you justify your ignorance of that statement? If you plan on running a diplomatic campaign and your PCs are all half orc barbarians, don’t you think that they will be ill suited for the campaign? That depends. Is the campaign the kind where all the characters are exactly the right guys for the job? Is is the campaign more like the kind I was actually talking about, where a bunch of people are dropped into a situation which they are not especially ready to deal with? Although your example is extreme, the stories about savage barbarians or country bumpkins who find themselves dealing with the difficulties of civilization are countless, as are those about city-folk dumped in a place without the comforts they are used to. As for party molding, so what? Is the problem that the groups are too well balanced and effective? The problem with this idea of yours (not consulting each other) is twofold. One If two players make similar characters one will inevitably be better than the other. And two the party may end up without something vital, like healing or spellcasting. Your Players really should be informed what kind of things to expect. I should have answered the entire paragraph instead of taking one line out of context. I apologize. The problem is, indeed, that the groups are too well balanced and effective. Sometimes when a door is locked it is meant to keep people out, not be be picked. I am all for the players solving problems, don't get me wrong. But once you've played enough games with carefully planned out groups, you want to see some creative solutions. We all know how a bard or a rogue is going to handle himself in a diplomatic situation; but how is the half-orc barbarian going to do it? Are you telling me that he can't, or shouldn't have to? I don't think I want to play in a game where known solutions are used time and time again, and new ways of doing what seemed undoable never have a chance to happen. If two players create similar characters, how can one be "better"? If they are the same, then they have the same opportunity to be good at something. They might use resources differently, including stat assignment, skills, feats, etc...but that would only result in one character being better at one thing, while the other is better at another. The only way to be a "better" character would be to be a better player, and that is a subject of an entirely different sort. Ending up without something "vital" simply means having to find another way of dealing with the problem. If you don't have healing, then you have to deal with monsters in a more defensive manner, perhaps even by avoiding them (this is what makes the Mournlands an exciting place to adventure, the need for extreme caution). If you don't have magic, then the same thing applies: you have to find another way to deal with a magic wall, or go another way. Now, despite my sense of enjoyment from OneMonk's plan of vengence against his play-groups powergaming, I do agree that the players "should know what they are up against". Or rather, they should know what kind of game they are playing in so that they are not disappointed, or wasting their time. But telling them to create characters without planning it out together is perfectly valid if you want a "thrown together unexpectedly" kind of game. OneMonk's choice to pull a prank on his players by playing on their expectations doesn't change that at all, other than to see it enforced a little better.
ThatOneMonk 05-05-05, 11:45 AM	But telling them to create characters without planning it out together is perfectly valid if you want a "thrown together unexpectedly" kind of game. OneMonk's choice to pull a prank on his players by playing on their expectations doesn't change that at all, other than to see it enforced a little better. BINGO! :cookie: Especially the last line... The point was to adjust their expectations in order to realize what the game is about. Each one of them, after they read the prank revealing post, was rather excited. I told them a little bit of what I had planned, one of them exactly how the game was going to start to help him with his character, and they seemed pleased with how this was going. My plan worked... The proof is in the pudding. :P (is that the right phrase?)
Aubri 05-05-05, 02:42 PM	(is that the right phrase?) Yes. And good for you! :D
Hell-ish-Thang 05-05-05, 03:04 PM	I have designed a somewhat really good rolls to start with: 8-10-12-14-16-18 for all characters, so we dont have power issues. Before i made this method for my group i had quite a problem. My bros mage was too powerful. He rolled something like 14-16-17-15-17-18 and my friend had like 11-13-12-14-15-13 and the mage(BRO) even fighted better than the rogue(friend).
Uglak 05-05-05, 03:58 PM	You have to nip power gaming in the bud whenever you can. It can be very bad if you don't. I would also give all the monsters max hit points also.
Bard06 05-05-05, 04:26 PM	What is Evil, I ask? ;) Well I don't see what wrong with your game that really makes it "evil". I don't see anything really evil with your method. It seems that your players don't really have a problem with the campaign ether. I read your other post and I dont know if that was...before...or after...I posted on that one too :). Your dm methods are unique and I would like to say your not doing a bad...job I dont think ;) -Bard06 :D
stembolt 05-05-05, 06:01 PM	Exactly. You either leave it out, or realize that the party may not be able to deal with it. A situation tailored to the abilities of the players can generally allow the PCs to get around things. But take combat with no healer. The choice for the DM is to then either supply healing or not fight (or just kill the PCs). A poorly constructed group is just what it sounds like, poorly constructed. Although your example is extreme, the stories about savage barbarians or country bumpkins who find themselves dealing with the difficulties of civilization are countless, as are those about city-folk dumped in a place without the comforts they are used to. There are lots of stories like that. The thing to remember is the setup. In those stories the protagonist typically uses his unusual knowledge/talents to superior effect. This is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. A ranger with a high search and spot in a city based murder mystery (that tracks the bad guy through the park etc.) is ideally suited to that campaign. A barbarian with a 6 Int and Power attack is not. Sometimes when a door is locked it is meant to keep people out, not be be picked. In a tabletop game if there is a door, the PCs will go through it. Otherwise the world needs to be littered with 10 inch adamantium doors in adamantium walls with perfect locks (DC 100) in antimagic fields with the hinges on the other side. That being said I never was a specific as to say that someone needed open locks. More like the party should have at least one way to open doors (barbarian with a ram, knock spell, open locks) if they are going to need to open a door. Take this example party where they have no way to open doors: DM: The door in front of you is locked. What do you do? PC: I guess we go home. We all know how a bard or a rogue is going to handle himself in a diplomatic situation; but how is the half-orc barbarian going to do it? Are you telling me that he can't, or shouldn't have to? Not quite. If you have a diplomatic campaign planned how well is the Int 6 Barbarian going to fare? If he is played “right” he is dead before the first adventure ends. Boy that was fun. As part of another campaign it might be fun to see a barbarian PC “negotiate” but not as the focus of the game. If two players create similar characters, how can one be "better"? If they are the same, then they have the same opportunity to be good at something. They might use resources differently, including stat assignment, skills, feats, etc...but that would only result in one character being better at one thing, while the other is better at another. The only way to be a "better" character would be to be a better player, and that is a subject of an entirely different sort. First level characters are generally very similar. I have seen effectively the same characters made several times. Except in our games the two players then changed their characters so as not to be exact clones. Ending up without something "vital" simply means having to find another way of dealing with the problem. Actually, if it is vital then you do need it. That’s my point. If you can demonstrate something that’s vital that you don’t need…well you can’t. Let me clear things up here. My point is that a group needs to be put together that can actually accomplish the given mission. That’s all, try not to read to much into it. You have to nip power gaming in the bud whenever you can. It can be very bad if you don't. I would also give all the monsters max hit points also. I thought for a second you were serious. The problem is that the joke is just too subtle (an grammatically incorrect). Well I don't see what wrong with your game that really makes it "evil". In your groups case you acted fine. With my friends for example I refer to the men as “ladies” and if they complain I ask if their training bras are on too tightly for their budding bosoms. This makes them laugh, so it’s the right thing to say.
Gurv 05-05-05, 07:41 PM	A situation tailored to the abilities of the players can generally allow the PCs to get around things. But take combat with no healer. The choice for the DM is to then either supply healing or not fight (or just kill the PCs). A poorly constructed group is just what it sounds like, poorly constructed. Some might consider it the choice of the PCs to seek alternative means to heal up, or to not fight when they cannot win. It can be a bit gritty, but having to deal with the fact that you lack something can be fun. There are lots of stories like that. The thing to remember is the setup. In those stories the protagonist typically uses his unusual knowledge/talents to superior effect. This is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. A ranger with a high search and spot in a city based murder mystery (that tracks the bad guy through the park etc.) is ideally suited to that campaign. A barbarian with a 6 Int and Power attack is not. Well, as we've agreed, the situation is an extreme. Nor have I suggested that the DM doesn't have to do any work to make the "random party" work. I suggested that the players not know exactly what they are getting into, or who they are getting into it with. The DM on the other hand, should know what the players will be playing, and plan accordingly by taking their abilities into account as he normally would in planning an adventure . If no one played a character with Track, then a task that cannot be completed without tracking is a dead-end, whatever the reason. In a tabletop game if there is a door, the PCs will go through it. Otherwise the world needs to be littered with 10 inch adamantium doors in adamantium walls with perfect locks (DC 100) in antimagic fields with the hinges on the other side. No doubt. But if the party doesn't have the easy way (i.e. the boring old "I check for traps, then pick it"), then they will have to think of another way. If they can't think of another way, then they will have to come up with a plan that doesn't involve going through it. And the mindset that a if a door is there, then there must be a way through it is what my playgroup calls metagaming. The question the PCs should be asking is: "Is it worth the effort it is going to take to get through this door"? Then again, I'm also not the kind of DM that would put an unopenable door where the party can find it without a good reason, either. That being said I never was a specific as to say that someone needed open locks. More like the party should have at least one way to open doors (barbarian with a ram, knock spell, open locks) if they are going to need to open a door. Interesting idea...different people can do things different ways. Also consider: seeking a different way into the room, searching accessable areas for a key (did you know that most PCs forget locks have keys?), hiring a shady NPC to do it in exchange for a favor, using clairaudience/clairvoyance to see what is inside the room, and pouring acid into the lock to see if that helps the situation or makes it worse. Take this example party where they have no way to open doors: DM: The door in front of you is locked. What do you do? PC: I guess we go home. I fail to see how this has anything to do whether a party is well-balanced or not. Other than how it seems to support my view that gamers in a custom-designed party tend to not be creative enough to do anything but use the Open Lock skill against a lock. If your players think there is only one way to open a locked door, and won't try anything but that one thing, why do you need them present at all? You could just keep copies of their character sheets and have them go through your adventures by rote. Not quite. If you have a diplomatic campaign planned how well is the Int 6 Barbarian going to fare? If he is played “right” he is dead before the first adventure ends. Boy that was fun. If I have a diplomatic campaign planned, then I am not going to have a player with an Int 6 Barbarian. See my notes about the PCs being uninformed about who is playing what, not the DM. First level characters are generally very similar. I have seen effectively the same characters made several times. Except in our games the two players then changed their characters so as not to be exact clones. So you are agreeing that your statement that when "two players make similar characters one will inevitably be better than the other" was incorrect, and that instead the two characters would be very similar (excepting better players).? Actually, if it is vital then you do need it. That’s my point. If you can demonstrate something that’s vital that you don’t need…well you can’t. You are correct. If something is vital, you need it. I misspoke. What I meant is that nothing provided to a party by a single class is vital. Not healing, not magic, not fighting ability, nothing. You need something, of course, and I am not saying that commoners or experts are going to get very far (they shouldn't be on an adventure at all). But if you have four people with PC classes, then they can get by without some of those things. They can find other ways of dealing with most problems. Not all of them, I will admit. But a solid majority of adventuring problems can be solved by someone other than the ideal "man for the job". Let me clear things up here. My point is that a group needs to be put together that can actually accomplish the given mission. That’s all, try not to read to much into it. Or not sent on missions they can not accomplish, yes. If they are going on a mission where there is absolutely no way to deal with the problems, then the DM is being a jerk (just like sending 1st level characters to slay a troll), or the players are making the assumption that all problems exist for them to solve. I thought for a second you were serious. The problem is that the joke is just too subtle (an grammatically incorrect). You know...I think he was. I don't know what his point was meant to be, other than a caution against powergaming and a (dubious) suggestion about hit points. As I have hinted at, I don't think that throwing a party together "randomly" is the way it should always be done. What I have been trying to say is that it fits some styles of campaign. If you are running a campaign where you want the players to be a elite fighting force or a bunch of diplomatic spies, then DO NOT use this method for building your party. But if you are running a game where a lightning coach wreck leaves a bunch of perfect strangers in a desperate situation that draws them into the plots of the evil genius who planned the crash...then this may be the method for you.
stembolt 05-06-05, 03:48 AM	Some might consider it the choice of the PCs to seek alternative means to heal up, or to not fight when they cannot win. It can be a bit gritty, but having to deal with the fact that you lack something can be fun. Actually It is more often than not it is just a big pain in the but, however you may have some interesting reason to go that way (healing is just so important, and not just hitpoints either). What I am talking about here is the extreme case. Lets say 4 Barbarians int 6 half orcs. That group is just boned. But if the party doesn't have the easy way (i.e. the boring old "I check for traps, then pick it"), then they will have to think of another way. Like the more boring “I smash down the door?” There is no way the PCs are not going to eventually get through that door. All open locks buys is silence or not casting a spell. And the mindset that a if a door is there, then there must be a way through it is what my playgroup calls metagaming. Incorrectly calls metagaming I might add. That and metagaming is not bad most of the time. Metagaming would be… actually you know what forget metagaming. Metagaming is a gamer swear. Its what you say to someone when you disagree with what their character did or you don’t like them. So you are agreeing that your statement that when "two players make similar characters one will inevitably be better than the other" was incorrect, and that instead the two characters would be very similar (excepting better players).? In my campaigns it is a non issue. I have however seen it elsewhere and inevitably one character is better than the other. Lets say you have two barbarians identical except that one is a dwarf and one is a half-orc. The half orc is always 10feet faster and +1 to hit and damage better than the Dwarf. The dwarf is always second fiddle. You know...I think he was. I don't know what his point was meant to be, other than a caution against powergaming and a (dubious) suggestion about hit points. Oh I know. That kind of statement is like anti-poetry.
Gurv 05-06-05, 10:32 AM	You skipped over all my good points, including mention of the DM being aware of what choices are being made and that this creation method should only be used in a game where it makes sense, so I will have to assume that you agreed with them. Actually It is more often than not it is just a big pain in the but, however you may have some interesting reason to go that way (healing is just so important, and not just hitpoints either). What I am talking about here is the extreme case. Lets say 4 Barbarians int 6 half orcs. That group is just boned. Indeed they are. Boned. They generally are screwed in the extreme case and you can create an extreme case for any situation, regardless of how the party is built. Lets assume from this point on that I've been talking about how a "random party" would get along in a normal adventure, as opposed to one designed to destroy all but the most carefully designed, prebuilt dungeon-assault teams. Also, lets try to not skip over the part where again I mention that the DM shouldn't be out of the loop, only the players when they create the characters. The DM should still be guiding the players to prevent a completely useless party, or at least creating adventures where the party might have success. I mean, lets accept that no NPC patron is going to send 4 drooling half-orc barbarians into a social situation, or expect them do have much hope in a classic dungeon situation. Nor should a DM who wants to run an adventure where barbarians don't work be allowing players to make barbarians. I see nothing wrong with the DM saying "Uh, a barbarian isn't a good idea", only with another player suggesting that it doesn't mesh with his own plans. Also, if you are saying that it isn't any fun to play in a game where your barbarian warrior can't act irrationally and attack everything that moves, regardless of whether it will tear him to shreds or not, then you are entirely and unequivocally correct. If the ability to get hurt and then heal up is part of what makes the game fun for you, then healing is indeed vital to your game. I stopped playing that when Blizzard released Diablo, as it comes with flashing lights and sound effects for when I want that kind of fun. But if the idea of going into a dangerous situation where the challenge is to take on problems while avoiding the worst hurts by making smart choices is what makes the game fun for you, then having more than sufficient healing magic can actually detract from it. You begin to wonder why you are disarming the trap at all, when you know that the half-orc barbarian can survive almost anything it can dish out and the cleric can fix him once he's soaked the worst of it. Like the more boring “I smash down the door?” There is no way the PCs are not going to eventually get through that door. All open locks buys is silence or not casting a spell. I hope they do get through the door. And by doing it in a different way, they have created possibilities that were not there before. Without a rogue, they may have set off a trap. They may have made enough noise to alert nearby creatures. If stealth is still a goal (stealth...without a rogue? I don't get it), then smashing it down isn't an option either and they will have to continue to think. In any case, something will happen that wouldn't if the lock were picked, which means that this adventure will be different from the last. And the one before that. Incorrectly calls metagaming I might add. That and metagaming is not bad most of the time. Metagaming would be… actually you know what forget metagaming. Metagaming is a gamer swear. Its what you say to someone when you disagree with what their character did or you don’t like them. Oh no. Metagaming is what this disagreement comes down to. You just don't want to discuss it because you can't be right without metagaming. This is an example of metagaming, because normal people don't assume that a locked door has been specially designed to be defeated by them; that is something that players assume, sometimes correctly, but sometimes not. And metagaming is a gamer swear. I like that. And people swear about things they do not like, so by extension, metagaming is something that gamers do not like. The only gamers who like metagaming are those who want to do things that no one else agrees that they should be doing. If you are a player who wants to do things that no one else agrees you should be doing, then perhaps you should sit back and ask yourself why you're so antisocial. In a game where the campaign begins with "You guys are a bunch of adventurers who have worked together before" it makes perfect sense for them to have already specialized and created a workable team. In a campaign that starts with "the train crashes, and you are the survivors", then having a party that meshes perfectly is possible only through metagaming. It makes almost no sense for it to happen otherwise, and it is only happening because the players are under the false impression that their only chance of survival is to have a perfect team. The fact that the survivors are all highly capable people with extremely specialized skills is already stretching suspension of disbelief without having them discover that they are a perfect problem-solving machine. Such players have forgotten that part of the challenges that they are going to face is the fact that they are not perfectly ready to deal with them. In my campaigns it is a non issue. I have however seen it elsewhere and inevitably one character is better than the other. Lets say you have two barbarians identical except that one is a dwarf and one is a half-orc. The half orc is always 10feet faster and +1 to hit and damage better than the Dwarf. The dwarf is always second fiddle. Ouch. So the dwarf's familiarity with the dwarven waraxe wasn't of any use, nor was he ever bull rushed, tripped, poisoned, or targeted by a spell? He never faced orcs or giants? But why are we talking about two characters who are not created the same, rather than what we were supposedly discussing, which was two characters that are created the same? Half-orcs always move 10 feet faster than dwarves and have a +1 hit and damage. Your example is flawed because this would be the case even if the players had a week to work together and create characters. If you don't think that dwarves are as cool as half-orcs, well ok then. That is a matter of whether the advantages and disadvantages of dwarves and half-orcs are balanced, and can go elsewhere. But what does it have to do with whether creating two similar characters results in one character being "better"? In your example, the half-orc is better at moving (as always), while the dwarf is better at other things (as always). You've ceased arguing about similarly created characters and are now talking about characters that are created slightly different. Next you'll be telling me how two characters with different classes and feat/skill selections are "better" than one another. Now, can one character who is created similar to another be "better" than another? How? If they are created with different choices in race, class, feats, or skills, then the problem is solved because they have diversified the way you think they should. If they are accidentally created with nearly identical choices, then in what way is some character "better" than the other? That kind of statement is like anti-poetry. Statements without reasons...can't argue with them. Can't take them seriously either, but I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether they can back it up or not.
Aubri 05-06-05, 03:29 PM	:clap:
stembolt 05-06-05, 06:35 PM	You skipped over all my good points, including mention of the DM being aware of what choices are being made and that this creation method should only be used in a game where it makes sense, so I will have to assume that you agreed with them. More or less. I cut off my summary when I posted (that will teach me to post at 4 am after getting back from a Serenity sneak peak). I agree that the idea may be an interesting schtick for a campaign, like any novelty schtick. But not as a core method. But I point out that if the DM is molding the characters it is de facto group building anyway. The only thing left is that the characters may be surprised with each others abilities. Again good schtick but not a good standard practice (Except with the In Depth Roleplaying method). It is best when the PCs understand each others abilities so they can work together and help each other out. But if the idea of going into a dangerous situation where the challenge is to take on problems while avoiding the worst hurts by making smart choices is what makes the game fun for you, then having more than sufficient healing magic can actually detract from it. Only if you enjoy being challenged by easy things. PC: Boy those kobolds sure were tough since we tied our arms behind our backs. DM: Yes. heaven forbid you instead simply try a more challenging encounter. PC: Absolutely. Now that we are 6th level maybe we should blindfold ourselves to fight kobolds. You just don't want to discuss it because you can't be right without metagaming. No, I don’t want to bring it up because a discussion of metagaming is more comprehensive than this entire thread. But your point has a simple answer so I can just address that. PCs don’t assume that they can get through a door because the DM will want them to. So we have a no foul situation anyway. They assume they can get through a door because, it’s a door. The thing that is designed to go through. A cave in, for example , it typically something you can’t get through. Another good example would be the wall. And if you would like to discuss what is and is not metagaming, that’s a good topic for another thread. Ouch. So the dwarf's familiarity with the dwarven waraxe wasn't of any use, nor was he ever bull rushed, tripped, poisoned, or targeted by a spell? He never faced orcs or giants? But why are we talking about two characters who are not created the same, rather than what we were supposedly discussing, which was two characters that are created the same? Now lets be honest here, your clever friends make fun of you a lot, right? If the group had encountered the above situations so as to offset the advantages of the orc, can you guess which character would be the better one than?
Gurv 05-06-05, 07:19 PM	I agree that the idea may be an interesting schtick for a campaign, like any novelty schtick. But not as a core method. But I point out that if the DM is molding the characters it is de facto group building anyway. The only thing left is that the characters may be surprised with each others abilities. Agreed. Not the best method all the time, and only if you have players who are interested in it. OneMonk's method of dropping it on an unaware play group is not a good approach, other than for the shock value he was trying to instill by doing it. Only if you enjoy being challenged by easy things. PC: Boy those kobolds sure were tough since we tied our arms behind our backs. DM: Yes. heaven forbid you instead simply try a more challenging encounter. PC: Absolutely. Now that we are 6th level maybe we should blindfold ourselves to fight kobolds. Well, this sounds like you consider the only way of increasing challenge to be by heightening the power of the encounters. It is also possible to make an encounter more difficult by leaving the PCs lacking sometime. Much like having a dead magic zone somewhere, or not allowing healing in the Mournlands. How you do it is a matter of taste. My tastes tend towards doing both, instead of just one. And if you would like to discuss what is and is not metagaming, that’s a good topic for another thread. I know what metagaming is. Metagaming is using knowledge that your character doesn't have to influence what he does in the game. Do you have any arguement with that? Now lets be honest here, your clever friends make fun of you a lot, right? I can only assume that you have run out of intelligent responses, and have resorted to unfounded insults in order to make yourself feel superior. Good luck with that. If the group had encountered the above situations so as to offset the advantages of the orc, can you guess which character would be the better one than? Uh...so what you are saying is that each would be better in different circumstances? Now, tell me...if one character is better in one situation, and another is better in another circumstance, then is one "better" than the other? Because the last I checked, 3.X was about balance: you give up one thing to gain another. When I say that one character who is similar to another character can't be "better", I meant overall, not just in one particular situation. In the example of the dwarf vs. the orc, there are common situations where one or the other might have an advantage. But they are equal, and neither character is "better" than the other.
stembolt 05-07-05, 03:20 PM	I know what metagaming is. Metagaming is using knowledge that your character doesn't have to influence what he does in the game. Do you have any arguement with that? Yes because that’s not what metagaming is, by anyone’s consideration. The metagame is the game outside the game. An easy game to describe in this fashion is Magic the Gathering. The game is when you sit down and play. The metagame is collecting the cards and building decks. In DnD the metagame is a little fuzzier. The game is definitely where you talk as your character or decide to attack the minotaur with your sword. The metagame is definitely the books that the players own and character generation methods. The question is where do HPs fit in? That will vary from campaign to campaign. In some campaigns you are not allowed to discuss hitpoints. In some games people will say, I have only 3 hp left. No character “knows” that Gorfax the mighty is down to three hp. But the player knows it and “I had better heal him right now.” So what does this boil down to? There is generally the consideration of bad metathinking and good metathinking. And it typically boils down to the type of campaign. In some campaign styles all meta thiking is forbidden. Your character only knows what he has learned through the course of the adventure. In general though metagame thinking mostly applies to things like knowing that you are going to go to sharn after the DM buys the sharn sourcebook. Out of character knowledge can occasionally overlap with metagame but it is typically unnecessary. That’s because OoCK is always bad to use, most of the time. Well, this sounds like you consider the only way of increasing challenge to be by heightening the power of the encounters. Re read it. In the example the player was limiting his character and the dm was taking exception to it. Like the choice of the players to go into the dungeon with no healing for the “challenge.” It is a pointless challenge. I can only assume that you have run out of intelligent responses, and have resorted to unfounded insults in order to make yourself feel superior. The irony is palpable. You misinterpreted every single statement I made, then you misinterpreted most of the clarifications. That was where my comment was aimed. When I say that one character who is similar to another character can't be "better", I meant overall, not just in one particular situation. If you compare the two characters the dwarf has his underground powers, but as far as the party is concerned he and the halforc are the same niche. Do you think the dwarf player will care that his inferior fighting character can occasionally tell the rest of the party that they are 100’ underground? The other thing to remember is that this happens. Two characters being built into the same niche happens in the real world. I have seen it many, many times. Now when I see it either as a player or a DM I try to get the characters to diverge a little. But I am describing something that happens in actual real reality.
crazysamaritan 05-07-05, 04:38 PM	Like the choice of the players to go into the dungeon with no healing for the “challenge.” It is a pointless challenge. I submit, then, that you wish for the mournlands to be errated, so that characters can heal? Otherwise, you seem to claim that it is a pointless dungeon.
Marshall Stone 05-07-05, 07:09 PM	I submit, then, that you wish for the mournlands to be errated, so that characters can heal? Otherwise, you seem to claim that it is a pointless dungeon. Actually, healing is possible in the Mournlands, it just takes a lot of extra effort. Rope Trick (to move "out" of the Mournlands), Goodberrys, a Paladin's Lay Hands ability, by the RAW, all should work in the Mournlands.
Gurv 05-07-05, 07:24 PM	Yes because that’s not what metagaming is, by anyone’s consideration. Ok. But since you are the only one I have heard claim otherwise, and since I have seen the word used countless times in the manner I describe, I am going to consider "by anyone's consideration" to mean yours, and yours alone. I did find one definition, from an unofficial source on this forum HERE (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=46916), which defines metagaming as: Metagame (verb): To make character decisions in an RPG based upon game knowledge rather than character knowledge. Of course, that is unofficial and only stands to act as proof that I am not alone. I suppose it might be possible that everyone is wrong, and you have the sole power over the word's meaning. Can you tell me what was wrong with my definition of: "Metagaming is using knowledge that your character doesn't have to influence what he does in the game."? You example of "Gorfax" and his HP is an example of good roleplaying. The player knows that Gorfax is at 3 HP, and his character knows that Gorfax is grievously wounded and needs healing if he is to survive. There is no metagaming because the cleric sees and knows this. An example of metagaming would be if "Gorfax" took that terrible wound away from the cleric's line of sight, but the player of that cleric decided to "save" one of his spells to deal with it. If the cleric would have otherwise used that spell, then he is using metagame knowledge: knowledge that his player has that his character does not. To apply this to my original statement ("And the mindset that a if a door is there, then there must be a way through it is what my playgroup calls metagaming"), having the characters assume that they can get through the door because it wouldn't be there if they couldn't is metagaming. It is metagaming because the characters know that there are locks and traps in the world that they have no hope of bypassing. They have heard stories of impassable magical wards, mechanical locks of incredible complexity, and necromantic death traps. For the characters to assume that the door is automatically within the scope of their abilities, simply because they would never have come across it otherwise, suggests that the characters are extremely, extremely confident and/or arrogant or that they are using the player's knowledge that the DM is unlikely to place a door they cannot deal with. That’s because OoCK is always bad to use, most of the time. "Always bad to use, most of the time". Man, if my clever friends did make fun of me, imagine what they would do to you. Please give me an example of metagaming that does not involve using OoCK. Because my definition says that metagaming is "using knowledge that your character doesn't have to influence what he does in the game", which sounds like the same thing to me. If there are valid ways to metagame without a character using such knowledge, I seek to be enlightened about them. Re read it. In the example the player was limiting his character and the dm was taking exception to it. Like the choice of the players to go into the dungeon with no healing for the “challenge.” It is a pointless challenge. I did reread it. The DM taking exception to it (you) "sounds like you consider the only way of increasing challenge to be by heightening the power of the encounters". I am saying that the DM (you) in your example is wrong. The player tying his hands behind his back is doing so because he enjoys a challenging encounter (which the kobolds obviously are not). The fact that he is being forced to challenge himself by getting his own blindfold is because the DM is failing to cause it to happen otherwise; this DM only wants him to deal with "bigger" challenges, rather than dealing with a lesser one without the benefit of things like sight..or healing. As I've been saying, the challenge of an encounter can be heightened both by increasing the power of the encounter, or by decreasing the ability of the PC. You are saying that increasing the challenge by decreasing the PCs ability is a pointless challenge, while increasing the power of the challenge is acceptable. It is this view that I don't understand. Why is one more acceptable than the other? The irony is palpable. You misinterpreted every single statement I made, then you misinterpreted most of the clarifications. That was where my comment was aimed. I have understood every statement you have made. I have disagreed with several, and agreed with a few. But at the point where you insulted my intelligence, there was no clear indication that I had misinterpreted anything. At that point, I was pointing out that the racial abilities of a half-orc barbarian did not outweigh those of a dwarf barbarian. I was pointing that out because you had used it as an example of how one "similarly created character" would be surely be better than another. The fact that you were comparing two "differently created characters" indicates that you, not I, misinterpreted something. The conversation turned to whether one of two differently designed characters could be better than the other in different circumstances, which is obviously true. As far as I can see, my point there remains valid: if two players create characters without knowing what the other is creating, then the characters will either be different (and therefore one might be "better" at some things while the other is "better" at other things) or they will be similar and neither "better" than the other. If you compare the two characters the dwarf has his underground powers, but as far as the party is concerned he and the halforc are the same niche. Do you think the dwarf player will care that his inferior fighting character can occasionally tell the rest of the party that they are 100’ underground? No, I don't think that the dwarf player will care that his character can occasionally tell the rest of the party that they are 100' underground. Which would be why I didn't mention it. But if I compared the two characters, I do think that the dwarf's familiarity with the dwarven waraxe, his bonus against being bull rushed and tripped, and his resistances to being poisoned, or targeted by a spell, as well as his advantage against orcs and giants might compensate for the half-orc's slight advantage in dealing damage. Which is why I mentioned those. The fact that the party considers both barbarians to be in the same niche is both: A) too bad for them, since they have obviously overlooked the differences between them; and B) fortunately not too far off, as they both possess qualties that are useful to that niche. Furthermore, who makes a better barbarian, a dwarf of a half-orc, is not what we were talking about (I would say the half-orc, incidentally, although I would play the dwarf: going with the cliché, easy choice is what I have been talking about avoiding for two pages). Your side-tracking into other, more easily won, debates does not make you right about whether one of two characters accidentally made the same can be "better" than the other. If they are made differently, such as one player going with the favored class/race combo and the other not, then I would say that one might be better. But not if they accidentally make similar characters. The other thing to remember is that this happens. Two characters being built into the same niche happens in the real world. I have seen it many, many times. Now when I see it either as a player or a DM I try to get the characters to diverge a little. But I am describing something that happens in actual real reality. So you say. But you give no examples. I agree that two characters being built into the same niche happens. I disagree that one must “inevitably” be better than the other. A character might be better than another if the player is better at running it. And a real person might be better if he or she is more motivated. But there is nothing to indicate to me that "one will inevitably be better than the other".
Gurv 05-07-05, 07:39 PM	Actually, healing is possible in the Mournlands, it just takes a lot of extra effort. Rope Trick (to move "out" of the Mournlands), Goodberrys, a Paladin's Lay Hands ability, by the RAW, all should work in the Mournlands. :nonono: From what I gather, finding another way to deal with not having healing magic is just bad gaming and no player should have to do it. According to some sources, it isn't any fun to create a situation that deceases a party's ability to do something. Also note that although those solutions might work by the RAW, they are a bit shaky. Rope Trick depends on the DM agreeing that it is really outside the Mournlands: although there is wording in the RAW that says "yes", many DMs might say otherwise. I'm not saying one way or another, just that you should test it before you rely on it. Goodberry technically works, but is limited to healing 8 points of damage per 24 hours and that is on a perfect of Maximized casting. The berries only last 1/day level, so it would be difficult to amass a large enough supply before entering the Mournlands. And on the slight chance that you find berries in the Mournlands, are you really going to eat them? The paladin is the best option, although again, some DMs might disagree with the RAW; a paladin's lay on hands ability works in an identical fashion to spells with the healing descriptor, right down to being able to harm undead.
Marshall Stone 05-08-05, 01:37 AM	:nonono: From what I gather, finding another way to deal with not having healing magic is just bad gaming and no player should have to do it. According to some sources, it isn't any fun to create a situation that deceases a party's ability to do something. Also note that although those solutions might work by the RAW, they are a bit shaky. Rope Trick depends on the DM agreeing that it is really outside the Mournlands: although there is wording in the RAW that says "yes", many DMs might say otherwise. I'm not saying one way or another, just that you should test it before you rely on it. Goodberry technically works, but is limited to healing 8 points of damage per 24 hours and that is on a perfect of Maximized casting. The berries only last 1/day level, so it would be difficult to amass a large enough supply before entering the Mournlands. And on the slight chance that you find berries in the Mournlands, are you really going to eat them? The paladin is the best option, although again, some DMs might disagree with the RAW; a paladin's lay on hands ability works in an identical fashion to spells with the healing descriptor, right down to being able to harm undead. My response to Crazysmaritan's post was simply to counter the implication made that in the Mournlands no healing is possible whatsoever. The possibility does indeed exist, it's just extremely difficult. In the campaigns I run I allow for the aforementioned spells/ability to heal characters in the Mournlands IF the players think of using it. And That's assuming that thier characters have somehow already learned that natural healing and most healing spells don't work in the Mournlands. Currently the characters in the group I run learned the hard way how hard it is to heal in the Mournlands. Though they still haven't come up with using Rope Trick or Goodberrys but they did try to hire a paladin. And your right, if I did place a berry bush in the Mournlands and one of the characters thought to use it for Goodberrys spell I'd come up with some kind of...comical consequence I think, maybe something debilating, it would depend on the mood at the time. I'm also thinking that the use of Rope Trick, while successfull in taking the group "out" of the mournlands so they can heal, might also attract a living spell, or have some other interesting side effect. Again I wasn't suggesting that the very cool effect of no healing in the Mournlands was somehow defeated by a few simple spells/spell-like ability, but only that the Possibility of healing in the Mournlands thru the use of spells/spell-like abilities does indeed exist. Finally, your right about some DM's disagreeing with the RAW. Look at Edymnion's version of the Mournlands, even Epic characters should be careful in his version. Though I must admit the scheming DM in me is at times tempted to use Edymnion's version.
stembolt 05-08-05, 02:09 AM	I submit, then, that you wish for the mournlands to be errated, so that characters can heal? Otherwise, you seem to claim that it is a pointless dungeon My general advice is to try to actually figure things out before you leap to conclusions. It is pointless for players to purposefully limit their characters for the sake of making adventures more challenging. The DM presents the challenge, not the players.
Gurv 05-08-05, 10:34 AM	It is pointless for players to purposefully limit their characters for the sake of making adventures more challenging. The DM presents the challenge, not the players. Ah ha! That is the underlying issue that we disagree about, the reason we can't agree about anything else. I am going to add that to my sig, just to see if anyone notices how it conflicts with my other, better, signature. You feel that it is Player vs. DM. That the point of the game is for the DM to create challenging situation, and that the Players should attempt to thwart those challenges in any way possible. At no point should the Player be involved in making a situation more challenging, whether it be by roleplaying a disadvantage or actually having one. A Player should not create a character with a limitation beyond what the rules force him to deal with, nor create a character who is less than optimized to whatever challenge he expects to deal with. Does that sum it up?
Gurv 05-08-05, 10:39 AM	My response to Crazysmaritan's post was simply to counter the implication made that in the Mournlands no healing is possible whatsoever. The possibility does indeed exist, it's just extremely difficult. Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out the difficulties present, even when the possibility exists. None of the healing options are perfect solutions. The Mournlands simply burns more resources than normal, in addition to being a deadly place in its own right.
crazysamaritan 05-08-05, 03:11 PM	It is pointless for players to purposefully limit their characters for the sake of making adventures more challenging. The DM presents the challenge, not the players.So they should never go in the Mournlands, because that limits their abilities. In fact, they should not cast spells, since they would no longer be able to cast the spell afterwards, thereby limiting their abilities. Sounds like you've been reading too much Red Mage. Part of the challenge that the DM created for the players in the OT was that they had no knowledge of who they would be working with. If you accept it as a challenge, which is how the DM intended it, then by your own logic, it is a good idea. If you insist that it was the player's choice, then it's also the player's choice to go into the mournlands, preventing them from using traditional solutions, instead of being creative and coming up with new ones.
stembolt 05-08-05, 06:49 PM	Ok. But since you are the only one I have heard claim otherwise, and since I have seen the word used countless times in the manner I describe, I am going to consider "by anyone's consideration" to mean yours, and yours alone. I did find one definition, from an unofficial source on this forum HERE, which defines metagaming as: Thank you now please pass that on to troll bill with an extra side of “I told you so.” I told him about a dozen times that was wrong and his response was “It doesn’t matter.” That being said I use the definition presented by Richard Garfield the master of the meta game. If you would like to read more on the subject you can read an essay about it in “Horsemen of the apocalypse.” Remember that much OoCK is metagaming, but it being metagaming does not make it wrong. It being OoCK does. That being said… "Always bad to use, most of the time". Man, if my clever friends did make fun of me, imagine what they would do to you. Laugh at the joke. I constrain myself to speaking the truth all the time. Out of the 40 or so times I qualified myself you caught 1. I guess that’s better than none. For a challenge I guess you could go looking. Simply put OoCK is not always bad to use, just like I said. It is just bad to use most of the time. As I've been saying, the challenge of an encounter can be heightened both by increasing the power of the encounter, or by decreasing the ability of the PC. You are saying that increasing the challenge by decreasing the PCs ability is a pointless challenge, while increasing the power of the challenge is acceptable. It is this view that I don't understand. Why is one more acceptable than the other? No. Sigh. It doesn’t matter what I write because you are going to misinterpret it anyway. Ah ha! That is the underlying issue that we disagree about, the reason we can't agree about anything else. I am going to add that to my sig, just to see if anyone notices how it conflicts with my other, better, signature. Well we disagree but in the sense that I am right and you are wrong. There is no difference of opinions here, there is simply fact. At no point should the Player be involved in making a situation more challenging, whether it be by roleplaying a disadvantage or actually having one. Au contraire. If the character has a disadvantage it must be played. But you don’t just go around trying to make things pointlessly harder. For example a paladin must act within the bounds of their code of honor. That is appropriate. A paladin deciding to stop wearing any armor to make his missions more challenging is a fool. So they should never go in the Mournlands, because that limits their abilities. In fact, they should not cast spells, since they would no longer be able to cast the spell afterwards, thereby limiting their abilities. Are you kidding me? Do – go into the mornlands. Don’t – not prepare healing spells to increase the challenge. One of those things is something reasonable the other is foolish. Don’t get obsessed with the fact that my example of foolish behavior is similar to the effects of the mornlands. Now above all my advice is stop trying (and incidentally failing) to think. Concentrate on understanding the point that I am trying to make.
Alac Luin 05-08-05, 08:02 PM	I am going to add that to my sig, just to see if anyone notices how it conflicts with my other, better, signature. Actually, both of the statements complement each other. The DM's job is to challenge the players, not overwhelm them with a TPK. I see no contradiction here. The DM can send the players into the mournlands to recover an item, that’s setting up a challenge, that is good. The player can come up against kobolds, again, that the DM has thrown at his 10th level fighter, and the player could say “OK, shall I pretend to have a +1 BAB to give the kobolds a chance?” that is bad. Then again, I’m coming late to this thread, and may not understand the context, but the statements alone do not contradict each other.
Gurv 05-09-05, 12:12 AM	I am going to end this argument. Although I disagree with you still on almost every subject we have touched upon, I can see that nothing could possibly cause you to admit that you are wrong about anything. The inability to accept the possibility is what suggests it the most strongly. As a last post on these meandering subjects, I want to make it clear that I still think that creating a character with weaknesses to role-play can be fun, and therefore is not "pointless". Also, creating a party that is not certain to have all the standard capabilities can be both challenging and fun; thus doing so is neither "pointless" nor wrong. And creating a situation that leaves the characters without an ability increases a challenge just as efficiently and validly as heightening the power of the challenge itself. The choice of a player to provide such an occurrence is not "pointless" if the choice increases the challenge and fun of the game. In addition to that, creating two characters with similar abilities does not "inevitably" lead to one character being better than the other. Furthermore, the meaning of the word "metagame" is not defined in any official source that I can find. Although I respect the qualifications of Richard Garfield and intend on reading his work to see if he might have something useful to add, I do not currently feel that his definition is any more valid than the more common, everyday usage of the word that I see. In closing, I would just like to add that belittling someone based on what you view as repetitive "misinterpretation" of what you say might mean that either you are being unclear, or that they are understanding you perfectly and you are “misinterpreting” what is being said to you. One of the clearest signs that you are not understanding what is being said to you is a feeling that the person speaking is wrong, yet being unable to clearly explain why. You might also increase the chance of making your point if you use examples when they are requested of you, as well as by not jumping from one topic to another. Yet another suggestion is to not turn the argument onto a tangent that distracts from the issue being discussed, no matter how badly you wish to find something to be right about. So I will leave this conversation with the knowledge that you have limited the options of yourself as a gamer because you do not want to accept the challenge of dealing with a situation in which you do not possess the knowledge of what you are going to face and having the proper tools with which to do it. If the idea of doing that does not sound fun to you, then I have no right to force it upon you, as you are entitled to one-dimensional, generic games without any kind of player dynamic if that is what you desire.
Gurv 05-09-05, 12:45 AM	Actually, both of the statements complement each other. It is mostly the use of the word "pointless" that makes the second quote wrong. If it makes the game more fun (and the point of a game is fun), then it is not pointless. The second line makes a statement that does not need to be true: it is the DMs job to make sure that the illusion of a challenge is maintained, but there is no reason that the DM must be the only source of the challenge itself. To combine the quotes, I would say that "making adventures more challenging" can be done by either the DM or the player as long as it does not "take away the kid's sense of achievement and fun". I see no reason why the player increasing the challenge on his own would reduce his sense of achievement. That is why the quotes conflict. Because one says that the challenge is an illusion the DM must keep up, while the other suggests that the DM should prevent the player from enhancing that illusion (because it is is pointless).
Aubri 05-09-05, 05:11 PM	Well we disagree but in the sense that I am right and you are wrong. There is no difference of opinions here, there is simply fact. Ehhh, no, you're pretty much wrong. You throw up a bunch of absurd images--a fighter with his arms tied, for example--but ultimately, this isn't a player problem. The DM has asked the players to each make their own character, independent of the others; thus the DM has instituted a challenge for the party to overcome. However, even if the players did it themselves, there's nothing wrong with being non-optimal. Ever heard of an "all-wizard party"? You say that one of two similar characters are inherently going to be superior, but I see no reason why this should be. Characters at low level are nothing if not mutable, so they can change to cover their weaknesses--and that's exactly what they SHOULD do! That's the point of the whole exercise! Who are you to declare that "wrong"? Who the hell do you think you are? Does the slightly weaker, slightly more hardy dwarf care that his character is a bit weaker than the half orc? Hell no! The dwarf can keep up his rage a round longer, he's significantly more resistant to magic--covering a critical weakness of the barbarian, will saves--and he can perform special actions like Trip without worrying about being tripped in return if he fails. Having his strength bonus one point lower is only barely significant, and in return he gets a suite of additional abilities. He'll be more skilled than his orcish friend--points that a barbarian has in short supply if he's dumped his Int--and has a couple of interesting weapons the half-orc would have to spend a feat to use. In any case, your argument rings hollow. What're the chances that two characters come out exactly the same? Even if they do, they won't be so for long. Even if they are, why does it make you so upset? It's a chance to roleplay some interesting interaction. And there's nothing a rogue likes better than another rogue to flank with...
Alac Luin 05-09-05, 07:43 PM	It is mostly the use of the word "pointless" that makes the second quote wrong. OK, I see where you are coming from. I do see points on both sides, and at least in parts I personally agree with both sides, and I thinking in some aspect its semantics and splitting hairs. It partly looks like this all started in character creation ideas. I’ll just say, in almost all circumstances, a character that took EWP and such for a certain weapon would be able to buy the weapon he has the proficiency in, even if they only had a short sword as starting equipment. Then there is the party make up. So, if the DM ends up with a party of 4 wizards, it is now up to the DM to supply the adventures to not TPK the party at low levels, and challenge them at higher levels. In all, this thread was started by a DM that presented a challenge to his players. Make the best characters you can under these guidelines. Maybe I should have stayed out of this conversation. :shrug:
stembolt 05-09-05, 08:44 PM	Then again, I’m coming late to this thread, and may not understand the context, but the statements alone do not contradict each other. You are absolutely correct. You “get it.” Ehhh, no, you're pretty much wrong. You throw up a bunch of absurd images--a fighter with his arms tied, for example--but ultimately, this isn't a player problem. The DM has asked the players to each make their own character, independent of the others; thus the DM has instituted a challenge for the party to overcome. So says the man who isn’t paying attention. The arm tied is a sideline. An example of the player limiting himself as opposed to the DM, through the course of the adventure. Does the slightly weaker, slightly more hardy dwarf care that his character is a bit weaker than the half orc? In my example the “Key” is that the character does mind and he has found his character to be inferior in a practical sense. I am going to end this argument. You’re going to end the argument by, not ending the argument? It is mostly the use of the word "pointless" that makes the second quote wrong. Well the player limiting himself for a point, wouldn’t be pointless now would it? If the limitation accomplishes something or has some end, then it is not pointless. The thing to remember is that the DM should be setting the limitations, even in character generation. (Yes at this point is where I tell you if you decide on some extreme limitation at your own discretion that yields you no gain, it is indeed pointless.) Furthermore, the meaning of the word "metagame" is not defined in any official source that I can find. Although I respect the qualifications of Richard Garfield and intend on reading his work to see if he might have something useful to add, I do not currently feel that his definition is any more valid than the more common, everyday usage of the word that I see. Really? Given that my usage is indeed older and from a more reputable source than the one you have seen in your limited experience? Not to mention the fact that it is logically surmisable? Of course what did I expect?
Gurv 05-09-05, 10:27 PM	In my example the “Key” is that the character does mind and he has found his character to be inferior in a practical sense. If the player in your example feels this way, then he is as wrong as you are. The perception that the character is any way inferior is an opinion. Since you can not seem to tell the difference between what is fact and what is your own opinion, I see little purpose in discussing it further. You’re going to end the argument by, not ending the argument? I am going to end the argument by not arguing it any further. You are wrong, and too obtuse to see how anyone else's methods might be as valid as your own. Well the player limiting himself for a point, wouldn’t be pointless now would it? If the limitation accomplishes something or has some end, then it is not pointless. Which is what makes what you said wrong. There is always a point. You think that the point of limiting one thing must be to gain another, when the truth is that the gain is simply the enjoyment of creating something with limits so that the player can then try to overcome those limits. The thing to remember is that the DM should be setting the limitations, even in character generation. (Yes at this point is where I tell you if you decide on some extreme limitation at your own discretion that yields you no gain, it is indeed pointless.) Again with the wrongness. There is always some point. If I decide on some extreme limitation that yields me no gain, then I get to tell myself "Stembolt couldn't handle playing this character, because dealing with this limitation would be too frustrating for him to enjoy". And the point would be the deep satisfaction that I get from showing myself to be a vastly superior, more intelligent gamer than someone who can only measure his success when the DM has sole control over increasing the challenge. Really? Given that my usage is indeed older and from a more reputable source than the one you have seen in your limited experience? Not to mention the fact that it is logically surmisable? Yes. Even given that the usage is older. The gaming industry changes quickly and is spread out over a variety of games, and it is entirely likely that a word's meaning has changed to adapt. I have no doubt that Richard Garfield's definition of the word applied to what he was talking about when he wrote it. I also have no doubt that you could "logically surmise" anything you wanted, as long as you thought it supported whatever crackpot theory you were spouting. Of course what did I expect? Most likely you expected that everyone would agree with you. It would have been a good expectation, but there was one problem that prevented it. You are still wrong.
stembolt 05-09-05, 11:16 PM	I am going to end the argument by not arguing it any further. You are wrong, and too obtuse to see how anyone else's methods might be as valid as your own. Right you prove that with the continuing to argue, very nice. The other problem with this statement is the fact that other people can be right. I never said they couldn’t be. I just said all of your statements were fallacious. Everything you continue to assert is wrong. Now I could use a bunch of fancy phrases and mean statements to try to put you down, but in the end why bother? What am I going to be, more right? PS- My favorite phrase, for anyone else reading is “Again with the wrongness.” That’s hilarious. I reread that part like 5 times.
Gurv 05-09-05, 11:56 PM	Right you prove that with the continuing to argue, very nice. Oh, but you see, I didn't continue to argue. I stated that you were wrong without giving any further reasons why. I have given my arguments and reasons already. The other problem with this statement is the fact that other people can be right. I never said they couldn’t be. I just said all of your statements were fallacious. Everything you continue to assert is wrong. Everything I continue to assert is opinion, and perfectly valid. Your inability to realize that your disagreement with me is not based on facts (but rather your own opinions), is all I am trying to say. Now I could use a bunch of fancy phrases and mean statements to try to put you down, but in the end why bother? I don't know. The mean statements that you started when you suggested that my clever friends make fun of me didn't work, so I've been kind of hard pressed to figure out why you continued doing it at all. What am I going to be, more right? That does seem quite unlikely at this point. PS- My favorite phrase, for anyone else reading is “Again with the wrongness.” That’s hilarious. I reread that part like 5 times. I am glad that you got something out of it. I myself thought using an odd phrase was a good way to draw attention to it, to make the reader reflect on how many times you have been wrong before. It would have been better if you had understood what I was trying to say about how something being "pointless" is always an opinion, never a fact, as you try to claim. But at least you got one more chance to say something fancy and mean out of it. I wish I could be feel put down for you...it must get so lonely for you.
stembolt 05-10-05, 12:11 AM	Oh, but you see, I didn't continue to argue. I stated that you were wrong without giving any further reasons why. I have given my arguments and reasons already. Oh is that an opinion? Everything I continue to assert is opinion, and perfectly valid. You cannot opine that facts are wrong. Or you can but it is just wrong. I don't know. The mean statements that you started when you suggested that my clever friends make fun of me didn't work, so I've been kind of hard pressed to figure out why you continued doing it at all. Yeah, well see the thing is if you actually had been clever that kind of statement might have kick started your brain into working. Worth taking a shot. Take comfort in that I wasn’t trying to be mean I was just trying to see if anyone was home. Maybe you can find someone to explain it to you. That does seem quite unlikely at this point. Yeah, it doesn’t get much better than 100%. I am glad that you got something out of it. I myself thought using an odd phrase was a good way to draw attention to it, to make the reader reflect on how many times you have been wrong before. Lets be honest, you certainly haven’t exhibited any ability to think in any of your previous posts. You can’t expect us to believe that you would suddenly start. So if anyone is looking for any kind of conclusion to this post, keep looking.
WizO_Sith 05-10-05, 11:18 AM	Flaming is a violation of the WotC Online Code of Conduct (http://www.wizards.com/coc). This thread will be locked. Do not restart it. *Click*