The Gaming Den

Very nice.

Shame it is over, I enjoyed reading it.

Well done sir. Well done.

0///0 gosh I didn't expect this much positive feedback.

Since I have no game this week I'm thinking of finally starting some real design work on one of my pet projects. It'll give me somthing to do other than argue with grognards on therpgsite.

Lord Mistborn's dumb GM wrote:Arcane Channeling better than sneak attack.

My favorite bit about this is that it made me think "That's the Ghoul Touch people with your sword thingy, right?"

You lasted longer than I would have.

ishy wrote:Shame it is over, I enjoyed reading it.

Same here, did you make sure to coup de grace the Paladin after he hit negatives? As I recall, it's merely a 10% percentile to stabilize, at that point, they might just rule that he miraculously survived if ye didn't see to his permanent Death. A Pity, I'm actually rather curious to how that campaign will go now that the Paladin is supposedly gone.

Lord Mistborn wrote: Since I have no game this week I'm thinking of finally starting some real design work on one of my pet projects. It'll give me somthing to do other than argue with grognards on therpgsite.

To further feed my curiosity for hearing painful words from ignorant/idiotic RPG fans, what was the subject(s) matter ye were arguing with on "therpgsite"? As well got a thread, or willing to divulge the details on this pet project of yours?

Well this and all the other ones relating to "denners" specifically got closed down at this point.

Also, what ARE you working on? I am also curious.

I do have my own fantasy heartbreaker that I always tell myself I'm going to start doing serious work on.

Right now being the hopeless weeaboo that I am I'm working on my other project Nanoha the RPG 1st. Check the It's my own Invention forum for more.

The Duel reminds me of this:

That is hilarious.

Aryxbez wrote:To further feed my curiosity for hearing painful words from ignorant/idiotic RPG fans, what was the subject(s) matter ye were arguing with on "therpgsite"? As well got a thread, or willing to divulge the details on this pet project of yours?

They were going back and forth about...

1: 1 Bone Devil vs level 10 core only party. Den was claiming it was a 100% loss or close for the party, grogs were claiming they had a good chance (yet when finally pressed to prove it, the guy running the party quit the instant enemy contact was made and the replacement refused to play at all unless his buddies cheated for him by giving him inside information).
2: Yet another goddamn Fighter vs Wizard thread. You can probably guess who was on what side, and who was utterly unconvinced by any and all logic that perhaps attacking for HP damage as the alpha and omega of your existence is not the best character plan.
3: Some play the game, not the rules type argument in which anyone concerned about the rules at all is apparently an autistic raincoat wearing OCD sufferer or some bullshit like that. Aside from them being outright offended when told their impossible stunts with no basis in the rules were in fact impossible this one is better forgotten by all.

My favorite offshoot of the Fighter vs Wizard was a forum mod who explained that he would punch in the face anyone who ever played a Cleric of Ares who hit people with a stick instead of sitting in the back and healing like all Clerics should.

Ah yes, the classic let's make there be two useless characters instead of one argument/let's make the Fighter drag down the entire party by not allowing anyone to be better than him argument. Which just means there's even more reason to ditch that dead weight ASAP.

It is these same people that get angry when this is pointed out.

Mr. GC wrote:It is these same people that get angry when this is pointed out.

So what is it that makes grognards rage so hard about compotent characters and class balance.

Honestly, I've been wondering the same thing, and it probably has something to do with the sheer amount of time and emotion that gets invested into RPG's, which in turn is something that is a consequence of the simple fact that you're sitting down and playing these things for a long period of time with friends. When you add into that the fact that (assuming these people are in their late teens/early twenties) they were probably persecuted and ostracized, to an extent, for being stereotypical nerds, the specific RPG in question becomes elevated into something that signifies friendship and safety, which in turn makes it the sacred cow to end all sacred cows.

And there's your daily dose of baseless, stupid, psychologizing.

Korgan0 wrote:Honestly, I've been wondering the same thing, and it probably has something to do with the sheer amount of time and emotion that gets invested into RPG's, which in turn is something that is a consequence of the simple fact that you're sitting down and playing these things for a long period of time with friends. When you add into that the fact that (assuming these people are in their late teens/early twenties) they were probably persecuted and ostracized, to an extent, for being stereotypical nerds, the specific RPG in question becomes elevated into something that signifies friendship and safety, which in turn makes it the sacred cow to end all sacred cows.

And there's your daily dose of baseless, stupid, psychologizing.

I'm not sure how safety amounts to dying often though. That seems the exact opposite of safe to me. Seems they'd want the safety of being able to make their own way.

Lord Mistborn wrote:

Mr. GC wrote:It is these same people that get angry when this is pointed out.

So what is it that makes grognards rage so hard about compotent characters and class balance.

Probably the same thing that makes people here rage about someone who wants to play a fighter, no matter the players reasoning.

And yes, that's basically me saying "A pox on both your houses"

We don't want people to not participate. They seem to enjoy non participation.

Try harder.

Mr. GC wrote:We don't want people to not participate. They seem to enjoy non participation.

Try harder.

Way to totally not get the point or to be strawmanning it.

I'm not talking about participation.

I'm pointing out they get all ragey when someone says A, not B
I'm then pointing out you all get ragey when someone says B, not A

You both get ragey for the same reasons, just for different viewpoints.
And that you're both wrong for doing so, for the same reason.

I'm getting the sense that Mikal is the kind of guy who thinks South Park makes salient political points.

Whipstitch wrote:I'm getting the sense that Mikal is the kind of guy who thinks South Park makes salient political points.

Interesting choice of words, given that the problem players in these scenarios tend to channel their inner Kenny.

Mr. GC wrote:Interesting choice of words, given that the problem players in these scenarios tend to channel their inner Kenny.

Well I've always said that a campagin that goes for 5 levels without at least one character death is a dull afair.

Mikal, they are avoiding your questions, so I think you are doing something right.

Edit:

Regarding the topic. So basically what you did is step into a not so experienced group, disrupted them with your superior knowledge of the game and then walked away? Just because they called themselves "real veterans". Somehow you are also proud about this, and others congratulate you for your (and the rest of that group) total lack of social skills. Personally I would feel bad, both for the paladin and the dm being so unsocial, and me for walking out of a situation when I had just made it worse. (And probably reduced my chances of being able to play in a group in that game store).

For all the heroics that games try to teach us, eye for an eye being bad just doesn't sink in does it?

Soyweiser wrote:Regarding the topic. So basically what you did is step into a not so experienced group, disrupted them with your superior knowledge of the game and then walked away? Just because they called themselves "real veterans". Somehow you are also proud about this, and others congratulate you for your (and the rest of that group) total lack of social skills. Personally I would feel bad, both for the paladin and the dm being so unsocial, and me for walking out of a situation when I had just made it worse. (And probably reduced my chances of being able to play in a group in that game store).

For all the heroics that games try to teach us, eye for an eye being bad just doesn't sink in does it?

They where longtime players (mostly from older editions I'm betting), how it is that people can play for years and not learn optimization 101 escapes me though.

I was softballing like fuck in that game even before the DM decided my character needed to take it up the ass. The DM forced me to play with gimp stats even though several players where clearly using a diffrent rolling meathod, he banned feats on the spot when me and the Cleric planned on taking them, and just stright up removed my classes main feature. That Paladin was being far more of a munchkin then I was what with his cheating on stat rolls and grabing all the loot. Anyway the DM had three players drop out over the course of that campagin (the Cleric told me he dropped out too).

Frankly I was doing the Paladin a favor he clearly labored under the dillusion that his character was good I showed him otherwise.