The Gaming Den

CCarter wrote:

echoVanguard wrote: I totally disagree with your assertion. Most competent GMs of 3.X will have read or at least skimmed the entire core ruleset.
-echo

(disclaimer -fairly drunk over here...)

Yeah good for them.
Cover to cover or nothing, bitches. Competency in 3.5 is like 3% of the player base. Its a ridiculously specific ruleset where not knowing where page XXX is gets you hosed sideways with a broom, but knowing all the rules loopholes means you're a god. No one knows all the fucking rules in the system except maybe Frank, on a good day.

How many 3.5 GMs know that:
*if you're untrained in Jump, you end up prone unless you beat the DC by 5.
*that a tower shield blocks an anti-magic field (if, as per the errata, you spend a standard action) because emanations can't go around corners?
*that your ranger can keep their horse going for hours, since their CLW wand curing fatigue damage from forced marching also fixes the fatigue? But you can't actually make the fucking thing go unless you have Handle Animal, since it can't be used untrained.
I mean fuck, unless you read the exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions, the system is lame since the GM will produce retarded rulings that are the exact opposite of the system 100% of the time.

Sorry if I sound like shadzar, as mentioned I'm hella drunk.
PS DSMatticus is awesome I totally want to quote you on how much everyone sucks barrels of cocks.

Tell us, when you are sober again, if you really wanted to talk about two different things.

Okay, why is anyone even responding to PL anymore?

Because really, he's either so far up his own ass that he cannot in any way see the point of the "opposition", or then he made this thread just to troll people.

Anecdotal, but in my experience, about 10% of the people I've played with have actually sat down and read the core books cover-to-cover, myself included. Most people I know only read the bits that are relevant to their character. I knew someone who pretty much exclusively played Druids, and she hadn't even looked at Wizard spells after about 3 years of somewhat consistent play.

Until someone has to actually use the material (rather than letting the MC tell them how to resolve a situation), I find that they generally just don't care enough to read about things. The only exception I've found is people during character creation dumpster diving for options.

Korwin wrote: Tell us, when you are sober again, if you really wanted to talk about two different things.

eh...I'm good. Sorry for shitposting.

CCarter wrote:

Korwin wrote: Tell us, when you are sober again, if you really wanted to talk about two different things.

eh...I'm good. Sorry for shitposting.

You seemed entirely on topic to me. Most people I've gamed with (and certainly most people I've seen arguing on message boards) don't have anything more than a casual knowledge of the rules, whether DMing or not.


Most people are, I think, really only jumping the concept because PL raised it in the most whiny, passive-aggressive way possible. It isn't like he didn't already know that elitist jackassery was the fucking point of the Den.

I think far more people think they have a good grasp of the rules than actually do- I'm on a small college campus with a pretty incestuous (not acutally) TTRPG crowd, and for a long time people weren't aware that you didn't autofail skill checks on a 1, that Heal didn't cure ability damage, that Holy didn't give you a +2 to hit, and so on.

For cases where people think they know the rules but don't, I've only really seen that in relation to changes from 3.0 to 3.5, to "everyone in this specific group uses these houserules and we all assume they're the real rules..." (typically involving stuff that happens if you roll a 1 or a 20 then 20) or "anything to do with White Wolf ever".

In that latter case, that's an easy mistake. In fact, maybe people who don't want to learn rules should go with White Wolf, where that's actually a benefit.

Ravengm wrote:Anecdotal, but in my experience, about 10% of the people I've played with have actually sat down and read the core books cover-to-cover, myself included. Most people I know only read the bits that are relevant to their character. I knew someone who pretty much exclusively played Druids, and she hadn't even looked at Wizard spells after about 3 years of somewhat consistent play.

Until someone has to actually use the material (rather than letting the MC tell them how to resolve a situation), I find that they generally just don't care enough to read about things. The only exception I've found is people during character creation dumpster diving for options.

That's exactly the point. No, not everyone reads the entire book. But everyone reads the parts of the book that interest them. People are fine playing a demo mode until parts of that demo catch their fancy, and then they read more to expand their interactions with those parts.

And that's why Phone Lobster's position is so insane. If people aren't interested enough in advancement to read their advancement options, why does he think that they'll understand the connotations of their advancement options well enough to make their advancement decisions on the fly?

-Username17

Chances are he'll say something he thinks is smart and somehow counters your point, Frank.

This whole thread seems to have been either cases of that, or then the other theory (he's trolling) holds the truth.

FrankTrollman wrote:*A pure 100% straw man*

Nice going there Frank. Very deceitful and total bullshit.

You came out in a thread and basically said "Systems MUST be designed for players to make characters in down time, and fuck you for trying to take any measures to let them do any of that in game!"

That is NOT the same as me saying "You may never do anything outside of game play".

You, and Koumei, very specifically took the hard line extreme positions on this. That's what this thread is about. Stop pretending I said anything less mild than "Lets make in game character creation/advancement faster" in order to cause you to FLIP YOUR FUCKING ELITIST SHIT all over my thread.

I fucking called it.

Do I get a cookie, now?

I think the thesis of the thread is right, even if PL came upon that thesis accidentally. Many of the pillars of this community hold radical opinions of D&D in specific and game design in general. Most gamers don't agree with these opinions. Hell, judging from my experience here, most people HERE don't agree with any one of those opinions. And yet, everyone here acts like everything they say is undeniably obvious fact instead of (carefully researched) opinion, and that everyone who disagrees is a borderline-illiterate who is Doing It Wrong and represents why the hobby is in decline.

I find this board to be an interesting thinktank for game design theory, but the atmosphere gets toxic for me after a while and I find myself not wanting to play RPGs at all instead of getting a better appreciation for them. Already, it's gotten me to the point where in order to run or play most of the games I own, I have to force myself to NOT see all the problems with them, or I can't enjoy the game.

This is why I periodically disappear for a while. One of those "Whiles" was a couple years long.

Funny you should say that, I love the atmosphere of this place.

I've only wanted to play even more 3.5e (and to fix Pathfinder) thanks to stuff I've seen here.

Edit: At least the debates here usually give out something useful for people to use, unlike at the Paizo forums...

Many of the opinions and views here are too extremist for actual "mainstream" gaming. Too many also think that whatever they like is universally liked, and what they cannot stand is a game breaker for everyone else.

Desdan_Mervolam wrote: Most gamers don't agree with these opinions. Hell, judging from my experience here, most people HERE don't agree with any one of those opinions. And yet, everyone here acts like everything they say is undeniably obvious fact instead of (carefully researched) opinion, and that everyone who disagrees is a borderline-illiterate who is Doing It Wrong and represents why the hobby is in decline.

I find this board to be an interesting thinktank for game design theory, but the atmosphere gets toxic for me after a while and I find myself not wanting to play RPGs at all instead of getting a better appreciation for them.

That's because in part, pending, what is being said isn't just "opinion", when an RPG's shortcomings are being pointed out, reasons are given as to why it brings the game down, especially if these flaws don't make it work as intended. Rules are the "facts" of the game, sure they come off as arrogant as result, but that's just how facts are (unless overwritten by more recent facts/information of course). As example, there are good reasons why Pathfinder is a lesser experience, if that wasn't the case, and perhaps even the opposite, then I'd imagine we'd be playing that instead.

Far as I'm seeing, most RPG fans are idiots, and not just "because",but they genuinely have outdated ideas, that tend to be quite bad. They're a dime a dozen type, that pretty much start to sound the same after awhile, and they're in preference to having their medium stagnate. In part how the most highly acclaimed fantasy RPG so far, is a decade old now, which is pretty damn sad. They don't really advocate for much change, and for a game that needs it most, that IS Bad for the hobby, less you desire for ill design and RPG's to wither away.

As for the Disagreeing bit, it can depend on the subject matter, if it is something preference wise, such as preferring low levels vs mid/high, that's fine, but if they wanted to say that "low levels" should be the only level range to exist in a game with multiple power levels..then I would disagree on their notion of limiting the scope of fantasy and shoving their preferences unto others (especially when there's more than enough boring low level fantasy junk for them to go after instead).

That said, I can agree to the Den feeling a bit "toxic", in that I've stopped wanting to DM on a couple of occasions because of stuff here, including running 3rd edition due to all its broken elements. However, I am quite glad to know them, rather not bask in ignorance, which I know would serve to lessen the play experience. All the better to know what you're getting into, so that I can know what to avoid, what to fix, and otherwise ensure all the more entertainment value we can derive from it. Otherwise, the Gaming Den is generally a pretty awesome place, if there's a forum I can see making the next good RPG/Redition of Fantasy, it would be this place.

Aryxbez wrote:That said, I can agree to the Den feeling a bit "toxic", in that I've stopped wanting to DM on a couple of occasions because of stuff here, including running 3rd edition due to all its broken elements. However, I am quite glad to know them, rather not bask in ignorance, which I know would serve to lessen the play experience. All the better to know what you're getting into, so that I can know what to avoid, what to fix, and otherwise ensure all the more entertainment value we can derive from it. Otherwise, the Gaming Den is generally a pretty awesome place, if there's a forum I can see making the next good RPG/Redition of Fantasy, it would be this place.

there is a bit of problem with that thought process. just because SOME people have a problem with a part of an edition, it doesnt mean YOUR group has a problem with it. so make sure you dont change things just because everyone else does. be ready in case you NEED to change them IF it comes up with your group.

so if you enjoy 3rd, then play it, and play it the way you want with all the problem it has for other people, only "fix" the problems YOU have with it.

no reason you shouldnt play a game you like because others dont. i surely despise 3rd and have no problems making it known around here, but its here. play it as long as you want, dont expect to see me in a TOME thread since it is for designing new things for 3rd, and dont try to sell me on 3rd in any way, and idgaf what you play, so long as you dont deny the existence of D&D prior to 3rd, or claim like the 4th edition teaser video that everything prior was worthless, thus it changed. that too is trying to sell me on it, cause it is marketing BS. dont be an echo chamber without individual thought capability and have no reason for disliking something prior to WOTC, and likewise be repeating the "facts" other people had about problems like WBL, if you dont actually have a problem with WBL.

remember the saying "ignorance is bliss", and if you didnt "know" about those problems others had because you didnt have them, you might have had more bliss playing without knowing or worrying about it.

I think that the Den's habit for invective against casual gamers, all manner of fans (Pathfinder, 4th Edition, "Old School Gamers"), people who use DM Fiat ("Magic Tea Party"), people who enjoy a game despite its flaws, and the use of ad hominem attacks gives it a well-deserved reputation for elitism. The last part in particular just drives people away gives things like character optimization a bad name, effectively preventing other people from coming over to our side.

It doesn't have this reputation due to emphasis on math or optimization. It's due to attitude and hostility.

Part of the problem with hostility to various groups is that on entirely too many occasions, it's in response to being attacked first for a non-hostile opinion. "The game is good, but I'll likely change this one flaw" is a common statement on all RPG forums that will get you gangbanged by defenders who either go full Oberoni or just plain say you're wrong about objective facts, usually very passive-aggressively and derisively. In many ways, other RPG forums are just as elitist as us, but they manage to hide it better.

This is essentially the only RPG forum I've ever seen where the mods don't actively defend that behavior, and so we've got a kind of ghetto going on, frequently with lots of bitterness (I'm guilty of such as well).

Libertad wrote:I think that the Den's habit for invective against casual gamers, all manner of fans (Pathfinder, 4th Edition, "Old School Gamers"), people who use DM Fiat ("Magic Tea Party"), people who enjoy a game despite its flaws, and the use of ad hominem attacks gives it a well-deserved reputation for elitism.

I don't agree with any of those.

1) I have seen zero railing at whatever the hell the casual gamer is supposed to be. Most people here seem to be interested in making games as accessible and easy to learn and play as possible.

2) Liking any particular game will not make a pariah of you around here. Putting on your fanboy glasses and refusing to admit that your game has problems that it clearly has will get very angry things said at you. If you enjoy playing Pathfinder, whatever, that's fine. If you think Pathfinder fixed 3.5, you think something very stupid and people should tell you so.

3) MTP in some limited capacity is basically unavoidable. A rule system that is complete enough to cover every possible situation is pretty damn difficult to make. The thing that actually makes a lot of people around here angry is "don't need rules for X because MTP!" If MTP is always a valid alternative, why are you even buying rulesbooks? They're full of rules you apparently don't need! Their explicit purpose is to move the resolution of actions from MTP to some form of objective result. And if you're going to keep buying and using rulebooks, you are admitting that MTP is not a universal excuse for rules failures/gaps, and then you have to make an actual argument for why that specific rule failure/gap is better in the realm of MTP than arbitration for this specific game (instead of using it as a universal bludgeon to dismiss failures of your preferred system).

4) I'm confident saying everyone here has enjoyed a game despite its flaws. I don't think anyone at TGD has hated every game they've ever played, and I don't think anyone at TGD has ever played a game they thought was perfect. Everyone here has played and enjoyed a game despite its flaws (however minor). The problem is not that you can enjoy imperfect things, because you clearly can and should. The problem is statements like "I enjoyed X, so it doesn't have that flaw you're talking about." Statements like that are common, and they make it harder to imrpove games. They are destructive, harmful statements.

5) Ad hominem is not actually that common around here. Important note: insulting someone is not the same as ad hominem. Ad hominem is specifically attacking someone's argument by invoking insults. Just insulting people is not an ad hominem. It's the difference between "you're wrong, here's why, and you're a moron," and "you're wrong because you're a moron." The first is merely rude. The second is fallacious.

You basically recapped the list of strawmen we get attacked with when we bitch about the stupid, fallacious defenses people propose of their favorite systems.

Edit: I typo'd 'imrpove' in 4, but remember: if you like my post, that's not actually a mistake, and if you don't like my post, then it's clearly not for you and you should read something else.