One of my players thread was lock? Don't know why? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

One of my players thread was lock? Don't know why?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
ace_of_time
Apr 13, 2009 8:29:02 The thread in question.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1175574

It was posted that the thread wasn't a rules discussion. But I think it was missunderstood that I was try to cause a flame war. Me and my players play 4e every weak and have played 3.5 since we got the new books. I know I can sometime get worked up on issues but I didn't undertstand how it wasn't about the rules. If it didn't belong in that part of the forums wouldn't it been better to move it to where the discussion was where it should be. Just wondered? Thanks.
#2
Seeker95
Apr 13, 2009 11:39:02 It seems that it stopped being a rules question as soon as the "them's the rules" answer was given. The OP and you both continued asking "why" (not a question about the rules, but about the game design). Normally that would be fine. But the thread title and the consistent casting aside of the responses that others tried to provide seemed to indicate the objective was anything but understanding.

It looks like Webster nipped it in the bud a bit sooner than most do, but as a non-participant, I see the road it seemed to be heading down.

You can send a PM to Webster and ask him for additional clarification, though.
#3
ace_of_time
Apr 13, 2009 20:23:41 I am not to worried about it. I was hoping it was not something me or my player had done. I just post how the rules work now in the game and what she had said to me was what she was posting about. Till I was being talk down to. It is funny because only one poster answered the question. I believe it was post number 20. I have been on here for 2 years now and have never started a thread just for that reason nor would I let my players do that. People have gotten really rude now a days on here. Oh well. Maybe I'll check with Webster just for reference. Thanks again.
#4
kletian999
Apr 13, 2009 20:48:52 Webster is only human, and has been nipping a lot of threads that even remotely compare rules between the two editions in recent weeks.

But yeah, comparing DnD to Pokemon in the title wasn't a good way to make friends (nevermind that people have been asking for the Pokemon trainer archetype character from both the Beastmaster and the Invoker).
#5
ace_of_time
Apr 13, 2009 21:00:46 That is my fault. I told her to make the thread title flashy so it would get people to look at it. I forgot to tell her about the other elements on the board. Oh well live and learn.
#6
Zherog
Apr 13, 2009 22:36:12 The other problem is that Rules Q&A isn't for discussion threads. It's for quick questions and their answers. In most cases, threads will get moved from there to a more appropriate forum. But I think the thread title killed any chance of that happening.
#7
crimson_lancer
Apr 13, 2009 23:02:08 Also, the whole discussion was based on a House Rule, not any Rules from any of the Books. You gave your Players Pokemon, and since the Rules have been adjusted due to Balance reasons to limit how powerful Companions can be, the game didn't really work like it should when everyone has a Companion.

If you wanted to add in Companions for everyone, your best bet is to also remove the Rule that states that your Companion doesn't have its own Actions. Then it wouldn't be Pokemon anymore. It might not be Balanced, but it's your game, after all.
#8
ace_of_time
Apr 14, 2009 18:34:36
The other problem is that Rules Q&A isn't for discussion threads. It's for quick questions and their answers. In most cases, threads will get moved from there to a more appropriate forum. But I think the thread title killed any chance of that happening.

I talked to her about that. And warned her that she might want to give the titles a second look from now on.
#9
ace_of_time
Apr 14, 2009 18:46:06
Also, the whole discussion was based on a House Rule, not any Rules from any of the Books. You gave your Players Pokemon, and since the Rules have been adjusted due to Balance reasons to limit how powerful Companions can be, the game didn't really work like it should when everyone has a Companion.

If you wanted to add in Companions for everyone, your best bet is to also remove the Rule that states that your Companion doesn't have its own Actions. Then it wouldn't be Pokemon anymore. It might not be Balanced, but it's your game, after all.

OK?
1. I didn't give them Pokemon. My player was commenting on how much alike the two were. (That being ranger pet and the Pokemon games.) Her pet was being run as a NPC and I haven't given her it for good yet because I was wanting for the rules in PHB2 before I decided how they work in my games.

2.The discussion was on how the ranger's animal companion work and then they switched to discussion the design behind it because I didn't like the answer "for balance". The discussion wasn't about my "House Rule" except that some posters said that the way I was doing it sound good and balanced.

3. I use the same limits that the current rules use for them. I was going to even use the stats and level that the ranger's rules used. Which I have already talk to my player about.

Thanks for the help though.
#10
ace_of_time
Apr 14, 2009 18:56:13 I thank part of the problem might be my Sig. I had posted the Greenish person thing on it when we were on here in the Community Business talking about the recent trollish behavior back when 4e first came out. I don't like using the word because it sounds so insulting. So I use greenish person instead. Some posted wanted to know why I thought they were green and that some of the posters involved in the activities have been here a while. So I added it to my Sig so posters would know what I was talking about when I used the words. But now that I look at it I could see how some posters might see this as me saying I was a greenish person which I am not at all. (Not a push over and sometimes I get overworked about things but not a greenish person.) Do you think it might be better to change it or take it off completely? Do you think that might be part of the problem? I mean if people see that and think I'm a greenish person straight from the start they will automatically be on edge from the start.
#11
crimson_lancer
Apr 14, 2009 22:34:54
OK?
1. I didn't give them Pokemon. My player was commenting on how much alike the two were. (That being ranger pet and the Pokemon games.) Her pet was being run as a NPC and I haven't given her it for good yet because I was wanting for the rules in PHB2 before I decided how they work in my games.

Ahh, better understood in context. Good decision!

2.The discussion was on how the ranger's animal companion work and then they switched to discussion the design behind it because I didn't like the answer "for balance". The discussion wasn't about my "House Rule" except that some posters said that the way I was doing it sound good and balanced.

::shrug:: I just don't see any other possible answer, personally. One player gets to play a single character, while another player gets to play two characters? Yech; that doesn't feel right to me at all. I like the current System for it.

3. I use the same limits that the current rules use for them. I was going to even use the stats and level that the ranger's rules used. Which I have already talk to my player about.

Thanks for the help though.

That's a great idea. I don't think there's much help I could really provide, though.

I like that part of your sig, personally; it reads more ironic than, "Watch out, I'm a Troll." You should be perfectly fine. :D
#12
ace_of_time
Apr 14, 2009 23:50:50 I would leave it as is. But my goals on the boards has always been helping my fellow gamers, helping others have fun, and trying to stop the rudeness that some people seem to do for no reason. This last part often puts me up against a few other people. When both sides think they are right the one that has the least help in any given discussion is the one considered being greenish. Even if they are not. Lately I have been trying to just post help for new DMs, page number for rules, and the like. Rules discussions get me worked up because of the way I believe so I try to stay away if I can because I'm not allowed to get stressed out any more. Doctors orders. My favorite thing is to open discussion threads on topics that most considered hot topics and get both sides to sit down and talk about the issue without fighting about it. That is hard to do the way the boards have been lately though.
#13
ace_of_time
Apr 15, 2009 12:31:12 A little off topic but I see WotC does not disappoint.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090413

This is almost right on with how they work right now. I have yet let them start summoning but they did get the benfits like the old 3.5 ones did. This will be perfect.:bounce:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ace_of_time Apr 13, 2009 8:29:02	The thread in question. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1175574 It was posted that the thread wasn't a rules discussion. But I think it was missunderstood that I was try to cause a flame war. Me and my players play 4e every weak and have played 3.5 since we got the new books. I know I can sometime get worked up on issues but I didn't undertstand how it wasn't about the rules. If it didn't belong in that part of the forums wouldn't it been better to move it to where the discussion was where it should be. Just wondered? Thanks.
#2 Seeker95 Apr 13, 2009 11:39:02	It seems that it stopped being a rules question as soon as the "them's the rules" answer was given. The OP and you both continued asking "why" (not a question about the rules, but about the game design). Normally that would be fine. But the thread title and the consistent casting aside of the responses that others tried to provide seemed to indicate the objective was anything but understanding. It looks like Webster nipped it in the bud a bit sooner than most do, but as a non-participant, I see the road it seemed to be heading down. You can send a PM to Webster and ask him for additional clarification, though.
#3 ace_of_time Apr 13, 2009 20:23:41	I am not to worried about it. I was hoping it was not something me or my player had done. I just post how the rules work now in the game and what she had said to me was what she was posting about. Till I was being talk down to. It is funny because only one poster answered the question. I believe it was post number 20. I have been on here for 2 years now and have never started a thread just for that reason nor would I let my players do that. People have gotten really rude now a days on here. Oh well. Maybe I'll check with Webster just for reference. Thanks again.
#4 kletian999 Apr 13, 2009 20:48:52	Webster is only human, and has been nipping a lot of threads that even remotely compare rules between the two editions in recent weeks. But yeah, comparing DnD to Pokemon in the title wasn't a good way to make friends (nevermind that people have been asking for the Pokemon trainer archetype character from both the Beastmaster and the Invoker).
#5 ace_of_time Apr 13, 2009 21:00:46	That is my fault. I told her to make the thread title flashy so it would get people to look at it. I forgot to tell her about the other elements on the board. Oh well live and learn.
#6 Zherog Apr 13, 2009 22:36:12	The other problem is that Rules Q&A isn't for discussion threads. It's for quick questions and their answers. In most cases, threads will get moved from there to a more appropriate forum. But I think the thread title killed any chance of that happening.
#7 crimson_lancer Apr 13, 2009 23:02:08	Also, the whole discussion was based on a House Rule, not any Rules from any of the Books. You gave your Players Pokemon, and since the Rules have been adjusted due to Balance reasons to limit how powerful Companions can be, the game didn't really work like it should when everyone has a Companion. If you wanted to add in Companions for everyone, your best bet is to also remove the Rule that states that your Companion doesn't have its own Actions. Then it wouldn't be Pokemon anymore. It might not be Balanced, but it's your game, after all.
#8 ace_of_time Apr 14, 2009 18:34:36	The other problem is that Rules Q&A isn't for discussion threads. It's for quick questions and their answers. In most cases, threads will get moved from there to a more appropriate forum. But I think the thread title killed any chance of that happening. I talked to her about that. And warned her that she might want to give the titles a second look from now on.
#9 ace_of_time Apr 14, 2009 18:46:06	Also, the whole discussion was based on a House Rule, not any Rules from any of the Books. You gave your Players Pokemon, and since the Rules have been adjusted due to Balance reasons to limit how powerful Companions can be, the game didn't really work like it should when everyone has a Companion. If you wanted to add in Companions for everyone, your best bet is to also remove the Rule that states that your Companion doesn't have its own Actions. Then it wouldn't be Pokemon anymore. It might not be Balanced, but it's your game, after all. OK? 1. I didn't give them Pokemon. My player was commenting on how much alike the two were. (That being ranger pet and the Pokemon games.) Her pet was being run as a NPC and I haven't given her it for good yet because I was wanting for the rules in PHB2 before I decided how they work in my games. 2.The discussion was on how the ranger's animal companion work and then they switched to discussion the design behind it because I didn't like the answer "for balance". The discussion wasn't about my "House Rule" except that some posters said that the way I was doing it sound good and balanced. 3. I use the same limits that the current rules use for them. I was going to even use the stats and level that the ranger's rules used. Which I have already talk to my player about. Thanks for the help though.
#10 ace_of_time Apr 14, 2009 18:56:13	I thank part of the problem might be my Sig. I had posted the Greenish person thing on it when we were on here in the Community Business talking about the recent trollish behavior back when 4e first came out. I don't like using the word because it sounds so insulting. So I use greenish person instead. Some posted wanted to know why I thought they were green and that some of the posters involved in the activities have been here a while. So I added it to my Sig so posters would know what I was talking about when I used the words. But now that I look at it I could see how some posters might see this as me saying I was a greenish person which I am not at all. (Not a push over and sometimes I get overworked about things but not a greenish person.) Do you think it might be better to change it or take it off completely? Do you think that might be part of the problem? I mean if people see that and think I'm a greenish person straight from the start they will automatically be on edge from the start.
#11 crimson_lancer Apr 14, 2009 22:34:54	OK? 1. I didn't give them Pokemon. My player was commenting on how much alike the two were. (That being ranger pet and the Pokemon games.) Her pet was being run as a NPC and I haven't given her it for good yet because I was wanting for the rules in PHB2 before I decided how they work in my games. Ahh, better understood in context. Good decision! 2.The discussion was on how the ranger's animal companion work and then they switched to discussion the design behind it because I didn't like the answer "for balance". The discussion wasn't about my "House Rule" except that some posters said that the way I was doing it sound good and balanced. ::shrug:: I just don't see any other possible answer, personally. One player gets to play a single character, while another player gets to play two characters? Yech; that doesn't feel right to me at all. I like the current System for it. 3. I use the same limits that the current rules use for them. I was going to even use the stats and level that the ranger's rules used. Which I have already talk to my player about. Thanks for the help though. That's a great idea. I don't think there's much help I could really provide, though. I like that part of your sig, personally; it reads more ironic than, "Watch out, I'm a Troll." You should be perfectly fine. :D
#12 ace_of_time Apr 14, 2009 23:50:50	I would leave it as is. But my goals on the boards has always been helping my fellow gamers, helping others have fun, and trying to stop the rudeness that some people seem to do for no reason. This last part often puts me up against a few other people. When both sides think they are right the one that has the least help in any given discussion is the one considered being greenish. Even if they are not. Lately I have been trying to just post help for new DMs, page number for rules, and the like. Rules discussions get me worked up because of the way I believe so I try to stay away if I can because I'm not allowed to get stressed out any more. Doctors orders. My favorite thing is to open discussion threads on topics that most considered hot topics and get both sides to sit down and talk about the issue without fighting about it. That is hard to do the way the boards have been lately though.
#13 ace_of_time Apr 15, 2009 12:31:12	A little off topic but I see WotC does not disappoint. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090413 This is almost right on with how they work right now. I have yet let them start summoning but they did get the benfits like the old 3.5 ones did. This will be perfect.:bounce: