DMfromTheAbyss
2008-07-04, 02:10 PM
I've noticed a fair number of rules discussions and build advice that leads to the situation where one must ask the disagreeing parties to "prove their point" usually this ends up being a challenge.
My problem is that said challenges are usually inconsistant, usually run by a biased DM whose already chosen sides and this pretty consistantly leads nowhere, robbing the discussion of any real usefulness beyond a name calling contest where both parties declare victory. I find this unacceptable as an observer, becouse in many cases I actually care to some degree who is really right.
Should we have some sort of forum wide "gentlegamers agreement" where we put down the basic rules of the "duel". If people just want to throw down in a statistical kind of way are there any universally accepted rules? Should we have some? What would they be?
When trying to make a particular claim (ex. X type of Monster with Y ability will always kill Z class) could there be standardized method for proving or disproving said statement?
Not that bringing this up will likely fix all of this, more a call to everyone to share ideas on HOW "WE" might fix this at some point in a possibly theoretical future, if it is indeed possible at all.
I have some suggestions to at least start the discussion.
1) Have Set rules in the beggining that both parties agree to.
2) Full disclosure of all relevant stats/equipment/powers involved.
3) Set probabilities (assume a fight without dice rolls?) for the conflict. After all I would personally challenge anyone to beat me if all my rolls are 20's (or lucky result for x-system equivilent) while all there's are 1's. If both players take average rolls (rolling a 10.5? or automatic 1-20 progression on rolls or whatever) what the outcome comes out to might actually mean something. A crit is something that is cool in a game for entertainment but when debating a build, A "he got lucky once" means very little...
4) Set number of rounds or rematches. This would also take randomness out of the discussion to a degree.
5) Perhaps some sort of standard progression of challenges (like a set number of CR identical encounters) over the course of a day (which is supposed to be the recommended 3-4 encounters per day in 3.5 I think?) This would be for a general this "works really well in normal play" or it "sucks" discussion.
6) some sort of standard environment(s) for challlenges to take place in that would best represent "normal play" Maybe a 30 by 30 room for dungeon crawl style games, a stock clearing in the woods for normal wilderness games, on the top of a plummeting space craft as it enters the atmosphere for those over the top games...
Anyone got any better ideas?
My problem is that said challenges are usually inconsistant, usually run by a biased DM whose already chosen sides and this pretty consistantly leads nowhere, robbing the discussion of any real usefulness beyond a name calling contest where both parties declare victory. I find this unacceptable as an observer, becouse in many cases I actually care to some degree who is really right.
Should we have some sort of forum wide "gentlegamers agreement" where we put down the basic rules of the "duel". If people just want to throw down in a statistical kind of way are there any universally accepted rules? Should we have some? What would they be?
When trying to make a particular claim (ex. X type of Monster with Y ability will always kill Z class) could there be standardized method for proving or disproving said statement?
Not that bringing this up will likely fix all of this, more a call to everyone to share ideas on HOW "WE" might fix this at some point in a possibly theoretical future, if it is indeed possible at all.
I have some suggestions to at least start the discussion.
1) Have Set rules in the beggining that both parties agree to.
2) Full disclosure of all relevant stats/equipment/powers involved.
3) Set probabilities (assume a fight without dice rolls?) for the conflict. After all I would personally challenge anyone to beat me if all my rolls are 20's (or lucky result for x-system equivilent) while all there's are 1's. If both players take average rolls (rolling a 10.5? or automatic 1-20 progression on rolls or whatever) what the outcome comes out to might actually mean something. A crit is something that is cool in a game for entertainment but when debating a build, A "he got lucky once" means very little...
4) Set number of rounds or rematches. This would also take randomness out of the discussion to a degree.
5) Perhaps some sort of standard progression of challenges (like a set number of CR identical encounters) over the course of a day (which is supposed to be the recommended 3-4 encounters per day in 3.5 I think?) This would be for a general this "works really well in normal play" or it "sucks" discussion.
6) some sort of standard environment(s) for challlenges to take place in that would best represent "normal play" Maybe a 30 by 30 room for dungeon crawl style games, a stock clearing in the woods for normal wilderness games, on the top of a plummeting space craft as it enters the atmosphere for those over the top games...
Anyone got any better ideas?