PDA

View Full Version : 100 dead horses we don't need to see anymore



randomhero00
2011-03-22, 02:51 PM
such as: No more VoP monks threads.

Firechanter
2011-03-22, 02:52 PM
No more Rope Trick threads.

Morph Bark
2011-03-22, 02:53 PM
/makes a VoP Monk thread

Oh wait this one is technically one, nvm!

Tyndmyr
2011-03-22, 02:53 PM
Stat yourself as a D&D character threads.

druid91
2011-03-22, 02:54 PM
Why not? What's wrong with this?

As for dead horses we don't need to see anymore...

Complaining about threads that cause arguments threads.

Cause some people argue for fun.:smallwink:


Stat yourself as a D&D character threads.

I will agree with this, mainly because you either overestimate or underestimate things greatly. Partly because D&D does not represent your average modern human being well.

Eldan
2011-03-22, 02:57 PM
Talking about horse butcheries.

gbprime
2011-03-22, 03:41 PM
My friends and I have practically made a drinking game out of the mention of Divine Metamagic. :smallbiggrin:

How can I optimize my cleric? Well with Divine Meta... DRINK! :smallsigh:

Firechanter
2011-03-22, 03:51 PM
From what I read [URL="http://
- 3.X vs. 4.X

I have to say I haven't seen many of these since I've been here.

Dsurion
2011-03-22, 03:56 PM
Would Like To See More Of:
- Cool Campaign Encounters (to steal)
- Cool Puzzles (to steal)
- Cool NPCs (to steal)
- My DM/Players Do The Craziest Things IRL (for funsies)Definitely all of those. I also wouldn't mind seeing more campaign journals, because I am left unfulfilled after reading the awesome Silverclawshift archives.

We could do away with all of the "100(1)" threads :smallwink:

SurlySeraph
2011-03-22, 04:09 PM
*Is Psionics Overpowered?
*There's This Thing Called the Book of Erotic Fantasy
*There's This Thing Called Pun-Pun
*Pun-Pun/ Twice-Betrayer of Shar/ [insert optimization exercise here] Isn't Really Overpowered/ Doesn't Work And I Have a Really Simple Argument Why
*Nothing is Overpowered Because the DM Can Say It Doesn't Work
*My DM Made a Ruling I Didn't Like
*My DM Didn't Follow RAW To The Letter
*I Wish To Make A Level 70 Gestalt Character Please Write Up The Entire Build For Me
*I Have Never Read A DnD Forum Before And I Wish To Discuss How Overpowered Monks, Fighter/ Wizards, Duskblades, or Beguilers Are
*Using Sources Other Than Core Is Bad
*I Am Not Aware Of The X Stat To Y Bonus Thread
*I Dislike Elves/ Gnomes/ Warforged/ Whatever

In the Homebrew forums:
*Here Is Another Holy Warrior Class
*Here Is A Class About Shadows
*Here Is A Class About Dragons
*Here Is A Class That Gets A New Special Ability, Each Of Which Has a Long Name And Description And None Of Which Work Like Any Of Its Other Abilities, At Each Level
*Here Is A Monster That Is Very Powerful Because I Multiplied Every Number In Its Statblock By 10. This Alone, And Not The Fluff, Should Make It Interesting.
*My Class/ Feat/ Race/ Whatever Needs To Have Extremely Complicated Mechanics So That It Will Be Unique And Special
*Here Is A Race With A Massively Overpowered Ability Balanced By A Very Annoying Drawback. Extra points if the drawback is not, in fact, all that bad
*Here Is A Race Whose Fluff Is That They Are Awesome And Nothing Else


Stat yourself as a D&D character threads.

I'm fine with occasional ones, it's a fun topic the first couple times you read it. (Well, except for the people who claim to have 14 or higher in everything, those who say no one should have above a 14 in anything, and their arguments. But that doesn't usually take over the thread until a few pages in).

Spiryt
2011-03-22, 04:11 PM
A first level fighter with the run feat can run faster, further, and longer than any human being who has ever lived, regardless of stats.

He can complete a marathon in about an hour and a half.

He can do this while wearing medium armor, wielding a sword and shield, and carrying a pack consisting of ten foot poles.

One shot, one kill, he he.

TheCountAlucard
2011-03-22, 04:22 PM
Book of Exalted Deeds thread, whether to complain that something is over/underpowered, or to complain about how badwrongcontradictory some of the stuff is, or to say, "I've seen these other BoED threads in the past, and I disagree."

Teln
2011-03-22, 04:23 PM
People making game threads outside of the game forum.

(Glares at 1001 Bad Plot Hooks).

Darth Stabber
2011-03-22, 05:16 PM
Should my paladin fall threads.

potatocubed
2011-03-22, 05:25 PM
*Here Is A Race Whose Fluff Is That They Are Awesome And Nothing Else

What, like elves?

Eloel
2011-03-22, 05:46 PM
What, like elves?

More like Humans.

Elves are treehuggers.

Also,

I Have Never Seen The RAW Thread So Here Is A New Thread For My Question That Can Actually Be Google'd Easily.

The Tygre
2011-03-22, 05:51 PM
In the Homebrew forums:
*Here Is Another Holy Warrior Class
*Here Is A Class About Shadows
*Here Is A Class About Dragons
*Here Is A Class That Gets A New Special Ability, Each Of Which Has a Long Name And Description And None Of Which Work Like Any Of Its Other Abilities, At Each Level
*Here Is A Monster That Is Very Powerful Because I Multiplied Every Number In Its Statblock By 10. This Alone, And Not The Fluff, Should Make It Interesting.
*My Class/ Feat/ Race/ Whatever Needs To Have Extremely Complicated Mechanics So That It Will Be Unique And Special
*Here Is A Race With A Massively Overpowered Ability Balanced By A Very Annoying Drawback. Extra points if the drawback is not, in fact, all that bad
*Here Is A Race Whose Fluff Is That They Are Awesome And Nothing Else

You forgot:
* Here's my Fighter fix
* Here's my mage fix
* Yeah! I'm gonna' fix magic FOREVER!

The Dark Fiddler
2011-03-22, 06:05 PM
More like Humans.

Elves are treehuggers.

Also,

I Have Never Seen The RAW Thread So Here Is A New Thread For My Question That Can Actually Be Google'd Easily.

Simple Question Thread What Simple Question Thread?

archon_huskie
2011-03-22, 06:18 PM
Threads that begin with a new player asking for advice on which feat to pick for their fighter, and get derailed with posts about why swordsage and wizard are better classes.

Morph Bark
2011-03-22, 07:16 PM
Definitely all of those. I also wouldn't mind seeing more campaign journals, because I am left unfulfilled after reading the awesome Silverclawshift archives.

We could do away with all of the "100(1)" threads :smallwink:

I thought of making a campaign journal for my last campaign, but didn't in the end because I just kept forgetting. Might just do that for the one that started last week though.

stainboy
2011-03-22, 07:21 PM
In the Homebrew forums:
*Here Is Another Holy Warrior Class
*Here Is A Class About Shadows
*Here Is A Class About Dragons
*Here Is A Class That Gets A New Special Ability, Each Of Which Has a Long Name And Description And None Of Which Work Like Any Of Its Other Abilities, At Each Level
*Here Is A Monster That Is Very Powerful Because I Multiplied Every Number In Its Statblock By 10. This Alone, And Not The Fluff, Should Make It Interesting.
*My Class/ Feat/ Race/ Whatever Needs To Have Extremely Complicated Mechanics So That It Will Be Unique And Special
*Here Is A Race With A Massively Overpowered Ability Balanced By A Very Annoying Drawback. Extra points if the drawback is not, in fact, all that bad
*Here Is A Race Whose Fluff Is That They Are Awesome And Nothing Else


*Here is my high T2 class that I wrote in an hour, don't you dare suggest that my rough draft isn't a perfectly balanced masterpiece

*Here is my shapechanger class, please look through all monsters ever published and figure out what it does

*Here is my fighter fix, he has Dimensional Anchor grapple and can cut through forcecages so you have to use different spells to make him irrelevant

*Here is my paladin fix, I made Smite Evil different

Firechanter
2011-03-22, 08:21 PM
Guys? TOPIC???

Thanks to the mods for purging the offtopic spam.

Lord_Gareth
2011-03-22, 08:55 PM
I'm starting to get sick of threads attempting to claim that mundanes can tackle mages. Guys, give it up. It will never happen.

The Glyphstone
2011-03-22, 09:52 PM
Great Modthulhu: Discussion on Einstein beating up MMA experts, Farmers lacking Knowledge: Animals, and related topics have been shunted to this thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192001) Burble.

navar100
2011-03-22, 10:59 PM
Spellcasters rule, warriors drool.

"Just play a druid."

Book Of Nine Swords is magic.

You can optimize up the whazoo if you want and like the "rollplay", but I prefer to "roleplay".

Point Buy is better than rolling.

TroubleBrewing
2011-03-22, 11:35 PM
Thread derailments due to Stormwind fallacy/thread derailed due to misunderstanding of said fallacy.

Volos
2011-03-22, 11:43 PM
Players complaining that DMs are mean/terrible/cheating/ect.
DMs complaining that Players are mean/terrible/cheating/ect.
For that matter any thread that involves complaining rather than discussions.

The Tygre
2011-03-22, 11:45 PM
Oh, God. How did we miss the big one?

Mother
FRAKKING
ALIGNMENT

Tyndmyr
2011-03-22, 11:48 PM
I'll give you a hell yea on the alignment.

I'll also be fairly happy if I never see the words "straw-man fallacy" ever again. Or at least not used by people who never bothered to learn what the words mean, which is almost the same thing.

Fox Box Socks
2011-03-23, 12:03 AM
I am sick to goddamn death of threads where people whine about character generation in 4e.

"I want to play a Fighter with a bow. What's that? If I want to play a martial character with a bow in 4e I'll have to play a Ranger? This is BULL. Clearly 4e is the most restrictive edition of Dungeons and Dragons ever, and Gygax is spinning in his grave."

Lord_Gareth
2011-03-23, 12:10 AM
Oh, God. How did we miss the big one?

Mother
FRAKKING
ALIGNMENT

Hey now, my Color Wheel has generated much healthy alignment debate >.>

Duncan_Ruadrik
2011-03-23, 12:21 AM
whether or not humans actually top out at level 5/6 or not. i.e.

" (X character) is level 5 because according to that one website EVERYONE has seen, Aragorn was level 5."

Doc Roc
2011-03-23, 12:25 AM
Threads insisting that Persist isn't very powerful.
Threads insisting that Wizard is quite weak.
Threads insisting that we discuss wizard.
Threads mentioning wizard.

Threads about UMD.

Fox Box Socks
2011-03-23, 12:44 AM
Threads where the first post goes something like this:

"I don't think that option X is very powerful because what if the DM does Y literally every single day because then it will cancel out option X"

stainboy
2011-03-23, 01:41 AM
Aww, just the first post?

Duncan_Ruadrik
2011-03-23, 02:03 AM
Threads insisting that Persist isn't very powerful.
Threads insisting that Wizard is quite weak.
Threads insisting that we discuss wizard.
Threads mentioning wizard.

Threads about UMD.

aww. I like threads about UMD. Wizards though, yeah, whatevs.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-23, 02:10 AM
aww. I like threads about UMD. Wizards though, yeah, whatevs.

UMD can actually have useful conversations about it.

That said, the "A monk with UMD is as good as a wizard" and "UMD can't really do x, can it?" threads do get old fast.

Sarco_Phage
2011-03-23, 02:12 AM
I am sick to goddamn death of threads where people whine about character generation in 4e.

"I want to play a Fighter with a bow. What's that? If I want to play a martial character with a bow in 4e I'll have to play a Ranger? This is BULL. Clearly 4e is the most restrictive edition of Dungeons and Dragons ever, and Gygax is spinning in his grave."

Try hanging around in less restrained places and you might be pleasantly surprised (while being simultaneously offended). They're so used to edition wars that the standard trolling attempts regarding 4e - the rather odd powers prior to the rule patches, for example, or complaining about the lack of variety in 4e abilities in general, or my personal favorite FIGHTER CAN ONLY PUT PERSON IN HEADLOCK ONCE A DAY - no longer really work and are mostly considered humorous jokes.

Or Bear Lore. Bear Lore was the greatest thing.

I suppose people just need to lighten up? I mean if 4e's not for them, they're not required by some kind of intrinsic WoTC law to play only the most current Edition. They could play something else.

Duncan_Ruadrik
2011-03-23, 03:35 AM
UMD can actually have useful conversations about it.

That said, the "A monk with UMD is as good as a wizard" and "UMD can't really do x, can it?" threads do get old fast.

Well. now you are just taking it out of the bounds of sanity. And that, we cannot have friends.

Firechanter
2011-03-23, 06:13 AM
Maybe slightly out of the scope of this thread, but in the OotS-discussion section of the board:

Threads going like ZOMG Roy made an angry face at Elan and Elan is a Good character that means he turned to EVIL!!1!1!!oneone

Pentachoron
2011-03-23, 06:18 AM
Maybe slightly out of the scope of this thread, but in the OotS-discussion section of the board:

Threads going like ZOMG Roy made an angry face at Elan and Elan is a Good character that means he turned to EVIL!!1!1!!oneone

That or "I know how Belkar is going to die" threads.

Really just "I have a 'clever' theory/insight about <x>" threads.

Amphetryon
2011-03-23, 07:18 AM
Threads discussing how [campaign]/[poster]/[competition]'s rankings of relative class power are WRONG because [hypothetical niche counterexample].

Malevolence
2011-03-23, 07:52 AM
Anything about Fighters. Let them retire in peace as bartenders already.

shadow_archmagi
2011-03-23, 08:00 AM
Iron Heart Surge is overpowered because it lets you prevent anything

Tome of Battle is overpowered because it has Iron Heart Surge.

Fox Box Socks
2011-03-23, 09:57 AM
Threads discussing how [campaign]/[poster]/[competition]'s rankings of relative class power are WRONG because [hypothetical niche counterexample].
I would be a happy man if I never saw the Perfect Solution Fallacy ever again, especially in regards to D&D.

"Oh, Wizards are boned if you do XYZ, and Fighters are not boned by XYZ, so Fighters are clearly stronger than Wizards. Clearly".

Tytalus
2011-03-23, 10:41 AM
*Here Is A Class That Gets A New Special Ability, Each Of Which Has a Long Name And Description And None Of Which Work Like Any Of Its Other Abilities, At Each Level
*Here Is A Monster That Is Very Powerful Because I Multiplied Every Number In Its Statblock By 10. This Alone, And Not The Fluff, Should Make It Interesting.
*My Class/ Feat/ Race/ Whatever Needs To Have Extremely Complicated Mechanics So That It Will Be Unique And Special
*Here Is A Race With A Massively Overpowered Ability Balanced By A Very Annoying Drawback. Extra points if the drawback is not, in fact, all that bad
*Here Is A Race Whose Fluff Is That They Are Awesome And Nothing Else.


It may be my guilty pleasure, but occasionally I find those threads quite entertaining.

randomhero00
2011-03-23, 11:05 AM
whether or not humans actually top out at level 5/6 or not. i.e.

" (X character) is level 5 because according to that one website EVERYONE has seen, Aragorn was level 5."

Hah, that's a good one. I forgot about that one.

Teln
2011-03-23, 02:31 PM
*My Class/ Feat/ Race/ Whatever Needs To Have Extremely Complicated Mechanics So That It Will Be Unique And Special

I'm generally fine with unique and flavorful mechanics, as long as they can be summed up in two paragraphs or less, not counting fluff.

The Tygre
2011-03-23, 02:45 PM
It may be my guilty pleasure, but occasionally I find those threads quite entertaining.

Oh, definitely. That's the bread and butter of homebrew, really, and that suits me just fine.

FMArthur
2011-03-23, 03:34 PM
I Have Never Seen The RAW Thread So Here Is A New Thread For My Question That Can Actually Be Google'd Easily.

And the thread title is always something along the lines of "I have a question about..." and they END THE TITLE WITH A QUESTION MARK. Why? Did you think all sentences containing the word 'question' or relating to inquiry at all need a question mark?

erikun
2011-03-23, 03:39 PM
I'm not a fan of restricting topics, as even the worst topics (Is This Action Really Evil?) can provide some interesting and insightful conversation. The threads that I do find annoying, though, are the ones along the lines of: "I have this interpretation of the rules and there is not a line of RAW directly contradicting it, therefore it must be supported by RAW."

That gets really tiring to discuss, especially when multiple pages of RAW are requested to discount the "RAW-supported interpretation".

Tyndmyr
2011-03-23, 04:04 PM
That is in fact annoying. Almost as annoying as "This action seems too powerful to me, so it cannot possibly be RAW."

While I applaud their misguided faith in WoTC, they do get old fast.

Fox Box Socks
2011-03-23, 05:19 PM
That is in fact annoying. Almost as annoying as "This action seems too powerful to me, so it cannot possibly be RAW."

While I applaud their misguided faith in WoTC, they do get old fast.
But WotC would never knowingly put out a game that was unbalanced, right?

Right?

Doc Roc
2011-03-23, 05:28 PM
But WotC would never knowingly put out a game that was unbalanced, right?

Right?

The part where it gets scary is what if you're right? And they just didn't get it at all?

Kallisti
2011-03-23, 05:33 PM
The part where it gets scary is what if you're right? And they just didn't get it at all?

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh! Don't even joke like that!

lesser_minion
2011-03-23, 05:40 PM
I'll also be fairly happy if I never see the words "straw-man fallacy" ever again. Or at least not used by people who never bothered to learn what the words mean, which is almost the same thing.

Agreed. The number of people who can name a given fallacy, and even know what it looks like, but don't actually understand it, is surprising. Or maybe they really do think that if they cry 'fallacy' then the thread will stop and they'll be awarded points or something.


Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh! Don't even joke like that!

It varies -- for example, we know that the 3.0 designers were aware that MAD was a problem (they deliberately made it easier to bump physical ability scores than mental ones). Subsequent designers clearly weren't, even though it was blatantly obvious (it was at least obvious that there was a good reason for potions of Eagle's Splendour, Fox's Cunning, and Owl's Wisdom to exist even though the spells themselves didn't).

The 3.5 designers seem to have made at least some of their decisions based on feedback broadly equivalent to this:


Paper seems pretty balanced, but Stone is way overpowered.

Which clearly does fall very heavily under the heading of "simply did not get it".

(note: not sure who actually made up that quote -- it wasn't me)

Sinfonian
2011-03-23, 05:43 PM
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh! Don't even joke like that!
Here (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142), allow me to reassure you that they often were aware of some of what they did. I don't feel it to be necessarily positive, but they weren't completely ignorant.

The Dark Fiddler
2011-03-23, 05:44 PM
And the thread title is always something along the lines of "I have a question about..." and they END THE TITLE WITH A QUESTION MARK. Why? Did you think all sentences containing the word 'question' or relating to inquiry at all need a question mark?

Similarly, it is so annoying when people start a thread with a generic title such as "3.5 Question" or "Problem with Exalted". Bonus points if they don't even specify the game/edition.

The Glyphstone
2011-03-23, 06:07 PM
Here (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142), allow me to reassure you that they often were aware of some of what they did. I don't feel it to be necessarily positive, but they weren't completely ignorant.

That's always smelt of retroactive butt-covering to me. Rather than admit that they screwed up and released a horribly unbalanced game, he tries to claim that it was intentional all along.

lesser_minion
2011-03-23, 06:28 PM
That's always smelt of retroactive butt-covering to me. Rather than admit that they screwed up and released a horribly unbalanced game, he tries to claim that it was intentional all along.

The thing is that there is evidence that implies that the designers were aware of at least some of the problems-- for example, the fact that spells to raise Int, Wis, or Cha were deliberately excluded from 3.0 Core even though the corresponding potions were available.

I still don't think any of the major problems in D&D came from the designers trying to make the game more interesting by unbalancing it, partly because I don't think any of the major imbalances in D&D actually seem to make things more interesting or work as Timmy cards, and partly because it doesn't fit the article -- the examples Monte gave were minor things, not critical decisions like character class.

Slight tangent: Am I insane, or is there actually a game design concept called 'yomi'?

Fox Box Socks
2011-03-23, 07:45 PM
At the risk of going off-topic, order is a lot less scary than chaos, even if that order is malevolent. The idea that a single person with a gun can forever silence a bold young president with bright ideas for the future is deeply unsettling, so people jump at shadows and pretend there's a conspiracy there. That the Earth is heating up due to the mistakes of our fathers and grandfathers, and that there's a growing chance that there's actually very little we can do about it, is frightening, so obviously it's just a story cooked up by GM to sell more light bulbs.

And, on a much smaller scale, the idea that a large game company with investors pouring millions of dollars into printing and distributing games could somehow fail to notice that their game was about as well-balanced as a one-legged chair, despite presumably thousands of hours of play testing, seems too colossal of a screw-up to even be possible, let alone plausible. No, it must be because Monte Cook had some misguided ideas about what makes for a fun time at the table.

Doc Roc
2011-03-23, 08:15 PM
Slight tangent: Am I insane, or is there actually a game design concept called 'yomi'?

This is a pet peeve of mine.

Dead horse:
Threads that ignore the empirical knowledge of gaming and game design that we've acquired, things like yomi layers (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sirlin.net%2Farticles%2Fyomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html&ei=xJqKTenzKoi-sQODz8H_Bw&usg=AFQjCNEBPshnIQfAQ2BULnHVo_gBuljEjA) which are well understood.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-03-24, 01:36 AM
Any thread relating to a falling paladin.

Paladin is a terrible class to play. It's not that it's all that weak a class, because there are some neat things you can do with it. No, it's a weak class because picking a paladin almost guarantees that your dm is going to do whatever he can to make you fall. He will make you fall every time you kill a goblin. You will fall every time you don't fight evil wyrms at level 1. You will fall.

What I'm trying to say is that I hate those threads because it makes it apparent that whenever anyone plays a paladin the dm wants nothing more than to make the paladin lose his already not that awesome class abilities. Bleh.

Sarco_Phage
2011-03-24, 01:44 AM
Paladin is a terrible class to play. It's not that it's all that weak a class, because there are some neat things you can do with it. No, it's a weak class because picking a paladin almost guarantees that your dm is going to do whatever he can to make you fall. He will make you fall every time you kill a goblin. You will fall every time you don't fight evil wyrms at level 1. You will fall.

That's not a class problem. That's a DM problem. If your DM has a problem with the class you like playing, you leave the group, because it's about fun for everyone.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 02:37 AM
At the risk of going off-topic, order is a lot less scary than chaos, even if that order is malevolent....
And, on a much smaller scale, the idea that a large game company with investors pouring millions of dollars into printing and distributing games could somehow fail to notice that their game was about as well-balanced as a one-legged chair, despite presumably thousands of hours of play testing, seems too colossal of a screw-up to even be possible, let alone plausible. No, it must be because Monte Cook had some misguided ideas about what makes for a fun time at the table.

Personally, I'm the opposite. I'd rather have chaos than malevolent order. I'm comfortable with chaos. Also, having spent a fair amount of time working for very large organizations, I'm not at all surprised at the idea of multimillion dollar projects missing fairly obvious things. Not in the slightest.

Still, I feel that they did intend system mastery AND didn't fully comprehend the ramifications of their rules. For instance, playing classes in non traditional ways. So...both viewpoints are at least partially true.

Paladin is a pretty rough class. I'd rather just gish it up, personally.

Doc Roc
2011-03-24, 01:17 PM
Personally, I'm the opposite. I'd rather have chaos than malevolent order. I'm comfortable with chaos. Also, having spent a fair amount of time working for very large organizations, I'm not at all surprised at the idea of multimillion dollar projects missing fairly obvious things. Not in the slightest.

Still, I feel that they did intend system mastery AND didn't fully comprehend the ramifications of their rules. For instance, playing classes in non traditional ways. So...both viewpoints are at least partially true.

Paladin is a pretty rough class. I'd rather just gish it up, personally.

To be fair? We've spent 6+ years on the rules, a lot of time they didn't have, and countless eyes. With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 01:20 PM
To be fair? We've spent 6+ years on the rules, a lot of time they didn't have, and countless eyes. With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.

True enough. All things considered, 3.5 isn't that bad at all. There's a lotta books for mistakes to be in, after all.

To anyone who complains that D&D books are terrible, I invite them to check out the 7th Sea D20 books(the sequel to the actual 7th Sea system, which was good). It's almost as if they were running so low on funds they couldn't afford spell-check.

Doc Roc
2011-03-24, 01:23 PM
True enough. All things considered, 3.5 isn't that bad at all. There's a lotta books for mistakes to be in, after all.

To anyone who complains that D&D books are terrible, I invite them to check out the 7th Sea D20 books(the sequel to the actual 7th Sea system, which was good). It's almost as if they were running so low on funds they couldn't afford spell-check.

And don't get me started on White Wolf. I'm rather fond of the WoD setting, but their game systems are held together with paperclips and gum.

lesser_minion
2011-03-24, 01:28 PM
This is a pet peeve of mine.

I'm aware of the concept, I just wasn't sure if I had the name right, and I didn't really want to make (more of) a fool of myself on an internet forum by getting it wrong.

Doc Roc
2011-03-24, 01:28 PM
I'm aware of the concept, I just wasn't sure if I had the name right, and I didn't really want to make (more of) a fool of myself on an internet forum by getting it wrong.

Oh no, my kvetch was unrelated.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 01:31 PM
It could be worse. I read one of the earlier version of the Hero system.

The negative: I've never felt like I needed a calculator and a day off work to make a character before.

The positive: I've saved tons of money on sleeping pills.

Doc Roc
2011-03-24, 01:50 PM
It could be worse. I read one of the earlier version of the Hero system.

The negative: I've never felt like I needed a calculator and a day off work to make a character before.

The positive: I've saved tons of money on sleeping pills.

I feel that way about Hero all the time.
The thing is, people yell about D&D3.x, but when you consider its immediate competitors, it was a wolf among sheep in every sense.

erikun
2011-03-24, 06:03 PM
Dead horse:
Threads that ignore the empirical knowledge of gaming and game design that we've acquired, things like yomi layers (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sirlin.net%2Farticles%2Fyomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html&ei=xJqKTenzKoi-sQODz8H_Bw&usg=AFQjCNEBPshnIQfAQ2BULnHVo_gBuljEjA) which are well understood.
Interesting article.

When was the last time yomi layers were discussed here, though? I could see them becoming relevant to the design of a card game or strategy game, but I don't see how they would related to a RPG. I don't think I'd want every encounter involving the GM to result in yomi games, after all.

Or if you just meant more general "ignoring acquired knowledge" rather than yomi layers specifically, then nevermind.

Doc Roc
2011-03-24, 06:13 PM
Interesting article.

When was the last time yomi layers were discussed here, though? I could see them becoming relevant to the design of a card game or strategy game, but I don't see how they would related to a RPG. I don't think I'd want every encounter involving the GM to result in yomi games, after all.

Or if you just meant more general "ignoring acquired knowledge" rather than yomi layers specifically, then nevermind.

In general. But you want some yomi layers in combat, otherwise it's rote and boring. Maybe not specific moves, but the interleave of strategies.