Your preferred level of complexity in a game?

[RandomCasualty2]

I also have to call BS on Players being created in a void RC2.

If I'm making a sailing campaign, I'm going to tell my players. If I make a campaign that's about investigation with little combat, I'm going to tell my players. If I make a campaign that's a Monty Haul, I'll tell my players. I'm not going to let a player make a horribly optimized character. If you pull this kind of dickery, like letting someone make a social character in a Monty Haul game, well, kudos to you I hope your happy.

Also, those problems about NPC's being too optimized depend on the system. It isn't always the case that being specialized will make you better. If you put vertical output restrictions, then being even more specialized won't really help very much (If all you can put into sailing is +5, then having an extra 5 skill points to spend won't be capable of making you a better sailor).

Well, yeah, you have a general theme but one theme should include a great deal of concepts and specialties. If for instance you're running a detective game, you can have forensic specialists, interrogators, undercover operatives and people with government connections. And sometimes your investigation may not require any important forensics, other times you may not have to interrogate anyone meaningfully.

Any good campaign concept needs a variety of specialists and has a variety of roles that no one character can completely fulfill. I mean, even if your campaign is Sinbad the sailor, keep in mind that Sinbad did a lot of shit on land too.

From your arguments I've realized that it's not always best to make NPC's as you make PC's, like in point buy or systems where making characters takes hours. I still think if it can work then we should use it though (roughly). No point in balancing two systems if we only need to balance one.

While it is true that balancing two systems is somewhat more complex, the important thing is that that complexity takes place during game design, and not during adventure preparation or even during actual play.

Also note that it's okay to sacrifice some balance for NPCs, because they only exist one combat, so minor differences won't even be all that apparent. Also, you can rely on guidelines instead of hard rules, because the DM's objective isn't to TPK the group, so he shouldn't have incentive to ridiculously abuse the rules to make the most powerful monster he can unless he's just going to be a total dick (in which case, why are you playing with him anyway?). You just don't want to end up with Giant TPK Crabs.

[PhoneLobster]

If you're a fire mage, sometimes you're going to get attacked by shit that is immune to fire, and not a heck of a lot you can do about it besides try to run away.

And if you have an encounter based challenge rating system when you have those encounters your character will be rated at a 3 or 4 point kick ass rating instead of a 12 or 30 or whatever you normally are.

The GM can then balance those encounters or at least allow players to transparently know what they are getting into within the expected range of difficult to easy match ups based on the PCs specific encounter based kick ass rating.

The alternative, simply having fire mage be level X and expecting him to take ALL level X encounters equally because on average he will do well in such match ups tells us NOTHING about how good or bad any single match up is and as such does NOTHING to solve the Farming/Sailing problem as it has been set forth.

I don't even know what you're saying here.

Frank has explicitly outlined that his separate NPC system works as follows.

Sailors plunging all their points into sailing shouldn't be allowed (?!)

So to emulate that sailor NPCs of any given level just plain get less points to pretend they spent some points on Farming. There is nothing to actually prevent them from going the OTHER way with this problem and spending some portion of those lesser points on Farming, but that is apparently not an issue (?!)

Then if you ever want to use these sailor NPCs again or with any versatility, you know, like say as if they were pre-written MM entries or something, and they enter a Farming encounter those emulated Farming points actually DON'T exist and don't grant farming powers and the system does NOT account for extending the character or it's description to grant any farming powers short of writing a new character entirely and pretending it is the same one.

Since for all Frank was blabbing on about me not having an alternative that is the ONLY separate NPC system actually presented so far to "solve" this problem so its the only one I can address and assume you are defending.

[Thymos]

It's not just more complex RC2, it's also more error prone. Giant TPK crabs are a result of this attempt (although to be generous we have to allow for a better 2 system arrangement than 3.x).

Still, under what I propose the TPK crab problem simple wouldn't exist. If they statted up a Barbarian, changed a few of his abilities (fast movement) to more crab approriate ones (+1 nat armor), the giant crab would never get the stats he has and still be called CR 3 (I think that's right).

[RandomCasualty2]

It's not just more complex RC2, it's also more error prone. Giant TPK crabs are a result of this attempt (although to be generous we have to allow for a better 2 system arrangement than 3.x).

Giant TPK crabs are a result of worrying too much about sub stats and not enough about final stats. Seriously, I don't care where it's attack bonus or damage comes from... I just want to make sense for its CR.

Still, under what I propose the TPK crab problem simple wouldn't exist. If they statted up a Barbarian, changed a few of his abilities (fast movement) to more crab approriate ones (+1 nat armor), the giant crab would never get the stats he has and still be called CR 3 (I think that's right).

The problem is that this is a complicated process. Just statting up a barbarian alone takes a while if he's high level. And do we include magic items? How do we compensate a monster for assuming it won't have equipment?

[Thymos]

I don't have all the answers RC2. I'm just trying to show the strength of this type of a system.

[PhoneLobster]

Giant TPK crabs are a result of worrying too much about sub stats and not enough about final stats. Seriously, I don't care where it's attack bonus or damage comes from... I just want to make sense for its CR.

Again you are adding 2 and 2 and getting "albatross".

3.x TPK crabs are the result of a BAD NPC generation system. Generating the crabs stats with less "sub stats" would have got you NOWHERE on solving the problem with them, which was that their numbers simply in no way compared well with the CR system and supposedly appropriate PC opponents.

Indeed removing sub stats would have made it WORSE as the crabs would be nothing more than big total numbers and there would be less ways to try and get around them and attack those ridiculous numbers such as avoiding Natural Armor bonuses or something.

And oddly the TPK crabs of 3.x are actually as close as 3.x got to your golden shining separate generation system for NPCs, TPK crabs DID use ability lists, generation methods and classes exclusively available to NPCs, so clearly THAT didn't help either now did it?

[Draco_Argentum]

No, the 3.5 crab used arbitary number selection to generate its strength score. That isn't a generation system anyone is proposing. Nice strawman.

---

How about you and Frank headbutt less.

And that sort of system means you can sit down and write up your NPCs for a sailing encounter with ONLY relevant sailing abilities, and then later if they do turn up on a farm just add abilities seamlessly without impacting their sailing encounter value, changing their pre-existing abilities or breaking the rules of the game.

As opposed to Frank's solution, in which the sailing NPCs are enforced generalists that spend levels on farming that do not actually ever grant them abilities in farming.

Seriously, is anyone else here seeing that these are almost exactly the same damn thing? PL and Frank both want to give NPCs abilities that are relevant in the current encounter only. Presumably both intend to give them an amount/power of abilities that are an appropriate challenge. If I add 'if you reuse an NPC for a different encounter give it an appropriate set of abilities/powers for that encounter' to Frank's plan they're the same damn thing. Do you really need to prove Frank wrong so much that you focused on this? Why not leave that and go for something that is actually different like what I talk about next?

The only difference is that PL is proposing making the PCs power level get calculated at encounter generation time. Thats a nice idea in theory. I don't see how you'd get it flexible enough to give a decently accurate power reading and be fast. Assuming 4 PCs with 20 abilities thats 80 abilities you have to scan through, check if they apply to a given encounter then add up. Or if abilities almost always apply scan through and subtract the useless ones from the total. That won't satisfy RC's demand to be able to generate an encounter on the fly when the PCs do something unexpected.

[RandomCasualty2]

I don't have all the answers RC2. I'm just trying to show the strength of this type of a system.

Yeah, well that I think is my biggest objection to the NPCs/PCs same system paradigm. Mainly I just haven't seen enough of an explanation of how you would do it quickly enough to make it possible as a system.

Conceptually there's nothing wrong with what you're proposing. In fact, it may well be more balanced than my system. But my main doubt is simply that it won't pass the speed test, or it will make PC options too limited.

Now I might end up being proven wrong. There may be some really great system that can be complex, fast and have unified mechanics for NPCs and PCs, but again, I just don't feel like it's going to be possible.

[RandomCasualty2]

Indeed removing sub stats would have made it WORSE as the crabs would be nothing more than big total numbers and there would be less ways to try and get around them and attack those ridiculous numbers such as avoiding Natural Armor bonuses or something.

And oddly the TPK crabs of 3.x are actually as close as 3.x got to your golden shining separate generation system for NPCs, TPK crabs DID use ability lists, generation methods and classes exclusively available to NPCs, so clearly THAT didn't help either now did it?

Not at all. My system is like 4E where the final numbers are determined by CR. Giant crabs can't happen because those numbers don't allow it. Similar to 4E, you'd have giant crabs be a brute monster, or a solider monster (or whatever classes you have), and its AC and damage won't exceed the max set for that monster type.

The 3E system which was monsters as PCs, basically just determined monster attack bonus how you determined PC attack bonuses. This was bad, because it meant that it was hard to create the types of monsters you wanted to make. If for instance you wanted a monster to be strong for flavor purposes, it totally screwed with the damage and attack bonuses. You could compensate by lowering the hit dice (and thus the BAB), but then you ended up with a glass cannon. So making a tough, strong, but inaccurate giant was impossible.

And that's the problem, creating a monster was a bunch of playing around with substats and trying to get the right combination to make the monster you wanted. This led to the 3.5 tax code creation system, and didn't produce balanced monsters. It just took longer for no good reason, solely for the effort of making monsters look like PCs. Now you may think the advantage was that monsters become playable PC characters, but this didn't work out well either, given that the hit dice, CR and LA were so disjoined.

So all the supposed benefits of a PC/NPC unified creation system never showed up, yet the drawback in speed was very real.

[PhoneLobster]

No, the 3.5 crab used arbitrary number selection to generate its strength score. That isn't a generation system anyone is proposing. Nice strawman.

It isn't a strawman it's RC's entire angle on this issue. Mind you I don't think you actually understand what strawman means since you've misused it rather thoroughly in this context since me and RC seemed to primarily be discussing the issue in regards to his "sub stats" fetish.

Seriously, is anyone else here seeing that these are almost exactly the same damn thing? PL and Frank both want to give NPCs abilities that are relevant in the current encounter only.

Here is the problem.

Generating an entire parallel RPG rules system to generate and adjudicate characters running in tandem with an existing RPG rules system that generates and adjudicates characters.

The reason a lot of the rest of the debate looks rather similar is largely because it IS. There isn't a thing about Frank's (as described rather unpalatable) enforced generalisation in character generation or my challenge rating system that couldn't or automatically shouldn't be implemented in EITHER a unified character rules system or the "separate and different" character rules system.

Which to any sane person suggests that all the costs and difficulties of a separate system are in fact completely needless and worthless. At least in respect to these issues.

But despite that Frank and RC, and you, are presenting problems and solutions that bear no real relevance to a separate system and declaring them as justifications for the separate system.

So of course, as long as the "debate" is two groups of people saying "the specialist vs generalist problem, it is bad" and one group tacking on "and by the our irrelevant pet strategy of the moment is cool for no apparent reason" then yeah, it's going to look mostly the same.

The only difference is that PL is proposing making the PCs power level get calculated at encounter generation time. Thats a nice idea in theory. I don't see how you'd get it flexible enough to give a decently accurate power reading and be fast.

RC and Frank want to generate entire NPCs according to an entire and unique strictly controlled character generation system with unique abilities entirely distinct to that of PCs.

Accounting overhead of any rival plan is not a fucking issue. "add five unless your opponent is made of fire" is relatively simple compared to you know, ENTIRE NEW FUCKING CHARACTER SYSTEM.

Assuming 4 PCs with 20 abilities thats 80 abilities you have to scan through, check if they apply to a given encounter then add up. Or if abilities almost always apply scan through and subtract the useless ones from the total.

PC abilities are largely the easiest part of the equation, they are largely static and highly familiar. Some notation standards organising abilities on your PC sheet by applicable context would help speed this even further (and be a handy aid for actual context relevant use of those abilities by the player).

The bit which will shift the most is determining the ratings for NPCs, and picking a bunch of applicable abilities with a given net challenge rating is no more complex (and indeed potentially less complex) than ANY on the fly generation method you care to name.

No really, I dare you, go ahead, name one.

That won't satisfy RC's demand to be able to generate an encounter on the fly when the PCs do something unexpected.

In that case if that is your standard then neither does Frank's proposition or anything that could ever actually solve the Farmer vs Sailor scenario as presented.

But my approach comes very, very close, closer than pretty much any other alternative actually presented. And until RC actually goes and learns anything about actual complexity costs nothing will ever meet his particular requirements anyway because frankly he doesn't know dick about what is and isn't actually a complexity cost.

I don't often pull the "qualifications" thing. But I am a Computer Scientist, I actually understand quite a bit about complexity issues. Building an entire separate parallel system and a translation layer between it and the existing character management system is FUCKING INSANE on complexity costs. But then I think I only really need to wave about my fancy primary school education for that one.

[PhoneLobster]

My system is like 4E where the final numbers are determined by CR. Giant crabs can't happen because those numbers don't allow it. Similar to 4E, you'd have giant crabs be a brute monster, or a solider monster (or whatever classes you have), and its AC and damage won't exceed the max set for that monster type.

The 3E system which was monsters as PCs, basically just determined monster attack bonus how you determined PC attack bonuses... (further nonsense with no apparent relevance to the D&D editions being name dropped)

You seem to have some insane ideas about what 3E and 4E are and how successful they were.

I mean to here you talk you'd think 3E had an actual unified PC-NPC system that was an abysmal failure hated by all and 4E has a beautifully balanced NPC system that has been a great success.

You live in crazy town where up is down and down is up and facts are just something other people believe in.

[Lago PARANOIA]

What the hell--

There are DEFINITELY demonic spider monsters in 4E. 4E did not solve the 3E problem of accidentally getting gang-raped by lantern archons. While it is better in some respects by having guidelines for attack bonuses and defenses, everything else is up in the air. A party of ghouls can easily be a TPK for any party of the same level. There's an undead critter that explodes in a burst 3 when it becomes bloodied and it gets killed. And the addition of a Goblin Hexer can turn nearly any encounter into a nightmare, even if it was otherwise a cakewalk.

[RandomCasualty2]

I don't often pull the "qualifications" thing. But I am a Computer Scientist, I actually understand quite a bit about complexity issues. Building an entire separate parallel system and a translation layer between it and the existing character management system is FUCKING INSANE on complexity costs. But then I think I only really need to wave about my fancy primary school education for that one.

I think that's your main problem. You think too much in computer terms. Only we're not writing a computer program, we're writing an RPG for live humans to use.

Your system is fine if a computer is running it, because you can have tons of variables, tons of tables and the computer look up time on all those is very minimal. In fact if you were running a game it would happen in under a second and wouldn't even be noticeable to someone playing it. Because that's what computers excel at. Sorting through data fast and making calculations. So even a potential table with 100 or even 1000 choices is easy for a computer to sort through. Similarly, adding up a point buy system is also really easy. Doing a monster as a PC is easy to a computer, because all those substats and calculations are done in milliseconds.

But while that may work for computers, human beings have considerably more difficulty with these tasks, and your computation time is in minutes, not milliseconds, and the time to perform these tasks is very noticeable. You wouldn't tolerate a computer game with a 10 minute load time per battle, and neither do you want that for a tabletop game.

In computer science, special exceptions are made all the time to generate unique algorithms for various tasks. And added complexity sometimes does mean faster run time. Writing a Quicksort algorithm is actually more complex code than a doing a bubble sort, but bubble sort is actually slower when you run it.

And in many applications, it helps to write specialized code to optimize your running time based on the kinds of data you're likely to encounter on average. You also write specialized code when your design goals for one system may be different than for another. Some systems are going to want to favor real-time speed over thoroughness, and you're going to inevitably use a different algorithm to achieve that. 3D Studio MAX produces much better 3D images than the UnReal game engine, but 3DS takes forever to calculate these images and UnReal does them quickly. Thus you use Unreal for games and 3DS for generating CGI movies.

What I'm suggesting is writing a system optimized for creating NPCs quickly. And that shit happens in computer science all the time. When time is a factor, you must sometimes sacrifice detail and precision for raw speed.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The biggest problem with monsters in any edition of D&D aren't the numbers but the abilities they hand out. Since there's no unified system of actually assigning bullshit like minor action daze attacks or self-resurrection abilities, actually fixing the CR is going to be cosmetic at best.

For example, there's a Skeleton Tomb Guardian in the MM that gets 4 +13 1d8+2 attacks. There's a Fire Archon Emberguard that gets ONE +13 1d12+3 attack with a 1d10 fire damage bonus. They're both brutes, only the Skeleton Tomb Guardian is L10 and the FAE is L12.

Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

[RandomCasualty2]

The biggest problem with monsters in any edition of D&D aren't the numbers but the abilities they hand out. Since there's no unified system of actually assigning bullshit like minor action daze attacks or self-resurrection abilities, actually fixing the CR is going to be cosmetic at best.

For example, there's a Skeleton Tomb Guardian in the MM that gets 4 +13 1d8+2 attacks. There's a Fire Archon Emberguard that gets ONE +13 1d12+3 attack with a 1d10 fire damage bonus. They're both brutes, only the Skeleton Tomb Guardian is L10 and the FAE is L12.

Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

Yeah, the problem is that the damage system should be based around damage a creature can dish out per round, not damage it can dish out with one attack.

[Username17]

Seriously, is anyone else here seeing that these are almost exactly the same damn thing? PL and Frank both want to give NPCs abilities that are relevant in the current encounter only.

Yes. However, I want the players created with a set of abilities that are useful and balanced across the campaign, and PL insists that every player has to be designed the same way as the NPCs so that they are all competent in each encounter.

Seriously, it's not just OK, it's actually good if there's a door to unlock and one guy who happens to be good at it goes and picks the lock while the rest of the characters watch and let him have his moment in the spotlight. And if there's a fire rune that one of the other characters has to or gets to dispel, that's fine too.

Over the course of the game there will be a lot of single person tasks that various characters will be called upon to do, and it's actually better for the game if characters have their actual abilities be more or less useful in those circumstances. It's actually more fair, because if all the characters are equally good then the actual player who talks fastest will end up dong everything and get way more screen time than the other players. In short, having player characters go through booms and busts of utility in their character's ability is more balanced than having every character be useful all the time.

So yeah, PL and I have essentially identical views on how to handle NPCs. But he wants to apply the same logic to Player Characters as well, and he's willing to call me nasty names over it. And he's dead wrong because that's a stupid plan. And he should feel stupid for even suggesting it. Because it's an obviously stupid plan.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

In order to prove your point Frank you just conflated the ENTIRE combat system with tiny single roll one off actions.

So again, fuck you for being a lying shit.

But as to booms and busts in utility you are rather... mistaken in your selection of precisely which strategy may support it.

You have stated that you do not want NPCs to be able to be better than PCs in specialist environments like Sailing encounters and that NPCs must be enforced non specialists to prevent this.

What the FUCK about that supports booms and busts in utility compared to an encounter based challenge rating system where a PC might be the equivalent of a level 12 character one encounter and a level 3 the next? Where an individual PC might vary within such a range while other party members don't? And where the system is actually designed to support that?

Better yet you state that YOUR enforced generalisation emulation is intended to bring NPCs into line with your, really rather stupidly assumed, idea of PC behaviour. What exactly prevents you from needing enforced generalisation on PCs too? And if it's there then why can't it work for NPCs?

What planet are you living on Frank? Because I think it's near crazy town.

You know you pulled the put up or shut up distraction, and I put up. People other than myself seem to be having some difficulty following exactly what the HELL you and RC are proposing, so maybe you should describe your plans in detail?

[PhoneLobster]

I think that's your main problem. You think too much in computer terms.

RC, I think your main problem is, you have no fucking idea of what complexity IS.

I know full well the limits of humans when making calculations and executing rules.

Thing is I know how to identify what is a larger calculation or what is a larger more complex rules set.

YOU DON'T. You have repeatedly declared that on gut feeling alone you think that a plan that would more than double the size of your base rules set is the simpler option. You know nothing. And like I said a primary school kid could tell you that.

[RandomCasualty2]

I know full well the limits of humans when making calculations and executing rules.

Thing is I know how to identify what is a larger calculation or what is a larger more complex rules set.

Either you are severely misjudging that or you just don't care about having a fast rules set. Because seriously, you're kidding yourself if you expect someone to make a mid to high level wizard quickly using PC generation.

You have repeatedly declared that on gut feeling alone you think that a plan that would more than double the size of your base rules set is the simpler option. You know nothing. And like I said a primary school kid could tell you that.

Not gut feeling. Experience.

I've seen how long it takes to make PCs under 3.5 D&D, Shadowrun, GURPS, even BESM or 4E. This is too fucking long to make a single NPC.

Thus the solution is either to dumb down PCs or have a separate system. I chose the latter.

I still have yet to see anything from you that remotely suggests how you plan on speeding up the process.

The bottom line is:
making a PC takes a long time.
If you make NPCs the same way, then making an NPC will take a long time too.

I have yet to see you provide any solution (or even a base concept to reach a solution) that fixes the creation time problem and also leaves room to have complex PCs. Really, the only option you have is to dumb down PCs so that you can create them faster. Is that what you're proposing?

[Elennsar]

More complex base rules, simpler to use in play = simpler where we need simplicity.

Less compelx base rules, more complicated to use in play = reverse.

RC, if NPCs in general were reused more (instead of being basically "props" for want of a better term), would it be worth spending more time on creating them?

[PhoneLobster]

Thus the solution is either to dumb down PCs or have a separate system. I chose the latter.

You CAN'T have a simpler NPC system without losing detail accross the entire fucking game. NPCs are over half the game. Make them simple and over half the game is that simple. If you can't accept that level of "dumbing down" for PCs then you are insane to think it is acceptable for OVER HALF THE GAME.

I still have yet to see anything from you that remotely suggests how you plan on speeding up the process.

I wrote what must be nearly three pages on this shit on the last thread.

You responded with the words "gut feeling". You don't understand complexity, you don't address it, you just use the damn WORD a lot.

I have yet to see you provide any solution (or even a base concept to reach a solution) that fixes the creation time problem and also leaves room to have complex PCs. Really, the only option you have is to dumb down PCs so that you can create them faster. Is that what you're proposing?

I have given you details out the fucking ying yang on this topic across multiple threads, not only do you ignore them, YOU HAVEN'T DONE THE SAME.

You point at examples in 3E and 4E and elsewhere which are completely counter to your arguments and you fail to describe how your separate system will actually function in ANY way let alone how it will function in a magically less complex way.

So do NOT say I haven't told you, I have, you are the one who hasn't addressed this issue, you are the one who from the start is proposing the more complex system, you are the one on whom burden of proof rests that doubling your rules base is magically less complex.

[Username17]

You CAN'T have a simpler NPC system without losing detail accross the entire fucking game. NPCs are over half the game. Make them simple and over half the game is that simple. If you can't accept that level of "dumbing down" for PCs then you are insane to think it is acceptable for OVER HALF THE GAME.

This is why your ideas are bullshit. More than half the game has the player characters, the actual protagonists on screen. Extras may account for more than half of the people in the shots, but they don't account for more than half of the dialogue, the focus, the narrative, or in fact anything we care about.

An NPC is by definition somewhere in between a protagonist and a lamp in the background of a scene. And sorry, Orc Thug #3 is a lot closer to the latter than the former. In Ocean's Eleven, the player characters get back stories. The NPC operating the polygraph test does not. The NPC walking around carrying drinks doesn't either.

Accusing people of insanity because they don't want to put as much effort into putting detail into guys walking across the background of a scene as the are willing and eager to on the characters walking across the front of the scene having a conversation is - at best - disingenuous projection. Humphrey Bogart not only has the microphone turned on him, but he also gets a voice over describing what he is thinking. The guys walking around in the background don't even get a mic. The sound of the bustle of their movement is added in later by foley artists.

We accept, nay, we demand to have a different level of detail for people that the camera focuses on than for people the camera does not focus on. Further, we demand to have even less detail for the people who aren't in the shot at all - in that people across town aren't even described, let alone give attributes or character sheets.

Honestly, I think the two of us are done here: you've made it abundantly clear what you think should be done, and I laugh derisively at it. There does not seem to be much point in flogging this dead horse. What you want is something that I don't want. I won't help you make any of your projects revolving around this concept because the results would not be something of any interest to me. And seemingly, you feel likewise about my projects.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

More than half the game has the player characters, the actual protagonists on screen.

More sophistry on your part as usual lately.

They SPEND the VAST majority of that screen time interacting with NPCs.

The players spend the majority of the formally resolved game interacting with the NPC rules system.

Make a claim counter to that and you are a moron, though I note in your deceptive little slimy wriggle there you didn't precisely make that claim, you instead shyly claimed that NPC fluff was less important and just magically jumped from that to claiming PC rules were somehow the vast majority of rules that are actually adjudicated in actual game play.

Honestly, I think the two of us are done here: you've made it abundantly clear what you think should be done, and I laugh derisively at it. There does not seem to be much point in flogging this dead horse. What you want is something that I don't want. I won't help you make any of your projects revolving around this concept because the results would not be something of any interest to me. And seemingly, you feel likewise about my projects.

You keep trying this one on.

"I disagree with you, therefore all discussion of this is over"

Uh huh. Great way to give your self, your ideas and this forum a good reputation and to allow it to be even remotely useful to any bugger.

You may not have noticed, you aren't the centre of the universe Frank.

And in other news, it's rather eccentric and shy of you to suggest our ideas are so irreconcilable when you haven't even presented your ideas clearly.

Indeed, it looks a lot like yet another smoke bomb to cover your retreat.

I remain fairly well convinced a lot of the hyperbole you've been throwing about lately won't make an appearance in any material you actually produce. Much of it is so insane as to be basically impossible anyway.

[Username17]

Does anyone who is not PhoneLobster disagree with any of the three following statements:

• I am willing to spend upwards of six minutes creating a Player Character for a game.
• I want to have an occasional scene with 20 or more NPCs in it.
• I do not want to spend over 2 hours creating NPCs for a single set piece, especially on short notice.

Seriously. Is there a single person on this forum who isn't PhoneLobster who disagrees with any of those statements?

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

So yeah, PL and I have essentially identical views on how to handle NPCs. But he wants to apply the same logic to Player Characters as well, and he's willing to call me nasty names over it. And he's dead wrong because that's a stupid plan. And he should feel stupid for even suggesting it. Because it's an obviously stupid plan.

To be fair you're doing the same thing, you've just managed to use words other than fuck, the tone is still there.

Mind you I don't think you actually understand what strawman means since you've misused it rather thoroughly in this context since me and RC seemed to primarily be discussing the issue in regards to his "sub stats" fetish.

You're claiming that RC likes the 3.x system and then attacking that position. Thats the definition of strawman.

I do not want to spend over 2 hours creating NPCs for a single set piece, especially on short notice.

Too easy to knock this one down. What kind of tool gives each orc axeman different stats then complains that it took too long to do so?