menu's and all you can eat

Ok, if you really hate pizza, and think it doesn't even count as food, would you complain an italian resterant needs to take it off there menu before you would order the eggplant parm off it?

If you were a vegatarian could you go eat at a stake house that had a buffet full of vegeis and pasta?

I know personaly I hate sea food, but I can sit with my girlfriend well she eats swordfish and enjoy my chicken parm.

Now to tell you why I bring this up. I love the warlord class, and I hate alignment restrictions, I dont mind come and get it or postioning strike. I love rituels that anyone can learn.

Now the same way I don't ask that all seafood be struck from the menu of every place I eat, I would buy next if the 9alignments are there, and palden, monk and assassin had alignments baked in. But if there is no warlord, no non magic forced movement and fighters cant have nice things I will not.

See I wont eat at a reaserant that only serves seafood, becuse I do not like it, but I will eat at a reaserant that searves fish AND food I like.


So everyone who says "I'm outof next" think fora moment, if you can choose to just not order the fish, and if someone els elikes fish just let them order it

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I like your analogy.  Happily I'm an omnivore and I eat just about everything. 

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Ok, if you really hate pizza, and think it doesn't even count as food, would you complain an italian resterant needs to take it off there menu before you would order the eggplant parm off it? If you were a vegatarian could you go eat at a stake house that had a buffet full of vegeis and pasta? I know personaly I hate sea food, but I can sit with my girlfriend well she eats swordfish and enjoy my chicken parm. Now to tell you why I bring this up. I love the warlord class, and I hate alignment restrictions, I dont mind come and get it or postioning strike. I love rituels that anyone can learn. Now the same way I don't ask that all seafood be struck from the menu of every place I eat, I would buy next if the 9alignments are there, and palden, monk and assassin had alignments baked in. But if there is no warlord, no non magic forced movement and fighters cant have nice things I will not. See I wont eat at a reaserant that only serves seafood, becuse I do not like it, but I will eat at a reaserant that searves fish AND food I like. So everyone who says "I'm outof next" think fora moment, if you can choose to just not order the fish, and if someone els elikes fish just let them order it



It depends. I also hate alignment restrictions, and would be ok with 9 alignments being present in 5E. I'm not ok with alignment restrictions ruining things I do care about, like Paladins and Monks. It's like having the food you like only served with seafood(which you hate) mixed in with it.
...whatever
While I don't like the Warlord as a Class, having it in the PHB doens't hurt my decision to buy the game. The Warlord is not one of the core classes, therefore it is assumed my game may not use it. However, if they put things into the core (such as Rogue using non-Magic forced movement), then they are forcing all groups to use it. That is why I want core to be as simple and small as possible. Using Modules is a great way to appease many groups, but to do so they need to keep core close to the bare bones.
If there is forced movement in Next i will likely not buy it. I can handle pushback assuming you go with him, knockdown and the like but much more and its a deal breaker.
And thus we have the basic problem with an otherwise good analogy.  I don't think anybody is really arguing that they refuse to eat at a restaurant because there's fish on the menu.  Rather, nobody can quite agree on what constitutes fish on the menu and what constitutes fish in my entree.  

Take Vancian casting.  You can say it's fish on the menu, because there will be other classes that don't use vancian and maybe even a wizard option that doesn't use vancian.  Or you can call it fish in my entree because if somebody else at my table is playing a vancian wizard, he's still going to make it next to impossible for me to have a challenging fight when it's the only encounter of the day, or for me to push on to an 8th encounter without getting crushed, or for my DM to balance the encounter with the BBEG because he has no idea how many spells the wizard will have left or which ones.  I'm not coming down on one side or the other of that debate, the point is that there are two sides.

Take Shiroiken here.  He feels that Rogues with "non-Magic forced movement" is fish in his entree, because they're forcing all groups to use it and he apparently believes that his fun will be spoiled if a fellow player with a rogue breaks his suspension of disbelief (correct me if I'm incorrectly extrapolating your point).  On the other hand, other people aren't interested in playing a system where they can't play a rogue that gets cool toys in combat.  Maybe you can add weaponized skills for rogues as a module, but then you've got to also add a module for every other class in the game that adds an equal amount of extra mechanical oomph.  Same goes for people who want fighters with resource management decisions.  Modules aren't a panacea that you can just slap on and call it a day, and the devs don't exactly have a stellar record of keeping balance.  
..Now the same way I don't ask that all seafood be struck from the menu of every place I eat, I would buy next if the 9alignments are there, and palden, monk and assassin had alignments baked in...

Although you'll buy it either way, hopefully during the playtest you are still standing for your opinion on those things. Cuz it's a playtest, if WotC didn't want our opinions on how the game should be they wouldn't have invited us.

Also, remember that sometimes it's more about a direction they're taking the game in general than the specific rule they mentioned. Monks have to be lawful? That's easy to ignore, no probs so I won't complain. Now there's a bunch of spells and abilities based on alignment and you need to write up a several page house rule list digging through tons of little thing? Aw crap.

As for the "I'm out, no D&DN for me" thing, yea I agree. The game is formable at this point, leaving now is just making sure your voice isn't heard.
What about a restaurant that has a Hobbit Menu? 
I'm not ok with alignment restrictions ruining things I do care about, like Paladins and Monks.

And the wars begin anew...

Your cake is a lie. Alignment restrictions do not ruin those classes.

Because to continue the analogy: You can order your hamburger with no mustard. Even when mustard is listed as a standard condiment right on the menu. It's still a hamburger. In fact its the hamburger you want on your plate. But the other guy still gets mustard on his because he like mustard.

However, if they put things into the core (such as Rogue using non-Magic forced movement), then they are forcing all groups to use it.

Bolded for emphasis... Really? You honestly believe that?

Interesting.

The analogy fails because st this restaurant, as you sit down, the waiter will serve you a meal. Now at this point, you can choose to ask that done things be removed from the plate and others be added, but that only goes up to a point. If the entire restaurants offerings are italian, and you ask for kung pao chicken, you're SOL. what's more, only experienced diners may feel comfortable ordering off menu, so what's on the default platter counts if you're interested in how new diners will react to the meal.

TlDr: modularity only goes so far.
If the entire restaurants offerings are italian, and you ask for kung pao chicken, you're SOL.

Balderdash. You don't go to a D&D restaurant to eat GURPS food.

Here's my response in to the analogy with an analogy:

My partner is alergic to gluten.  Cross contamination is a worry.  If a resturant advertises a gluten free menu, then we expect there to not be any gluten in the food and that it is prepared in such a way that there isn't a chance for cross contamination.   Otherwise its easy enough to look at menu options and say those are good, those are bad, and move on our way.  It's not as easy as just taking off the crutons on a salad - once it's touched the rest of the food there is always a chance for something to be left behind.  

D&D Next is the same thing - there are some elements I want to avoid.  Wizards is stating they are trying to be everything to everyone.  However I already see a few things I'm not happy with - and it may not be as easy as just taking those elements out. 

So...

I am fine if D&D Next "serves" both hamburgers and fish.  But I dont' want any fish touching my hamburger because there's a chance it will make me sick. 
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
Also...
The analogy fails because st this restaurant, as you sit down, the waiter will serve you a meal.

If, by this, you mean the waiter brings you out everything on the menu, stacking every kind of food in front of you, and then letting you help yourself to what you prefer and not touching the food you don't like, then yes. It is exactly like that.

Also, some condiments can be easily removed from the burger. Mustard can't. Just so, if the entire game is balanced around, say, vancian casting wizards, then no module is going to be able to change that balance. It would require an entire game rewrite. Ditto for those asking for playable dragon PCs, weapons balanced by speed, the elimination of the six stats, etc, etc. Some requests simply won't be met. Some design options will be mutually incompatible.
Also, some condiments can be easily removed from the burger. Mustard can't.

Why, in all the heavens, would you go and put mustard on a burger, then decide you didn't want it, and then try to scrape it off?

Also, some condiments can be easily removed from the burger. Mustard can't.

Why, in all the heavens, would you go and put mustard on a burger, then decide you didn't want it, and then try to scrape it off?



You wôuldnt, but that is what is happening with 5E right now. Monsters and PCs have too few HP to allow for any real tactical depth. Houseruling an increase in HP would be the same as receiving a hamburger with mustard on it and then scraping it off.
...whatever
There will be a basic game published, the "core." Some parts of that core will be absolutely incompatible with some players' preferences, and they will be so essential to the game's design that no module will be able to remove them. That's mustard some diners won't eat. Pretending DDN can be all things to all players is dishonest.
Nice post, GMforPowerGamers; I agree completely.  It also  made me hungry.  Good thing I have a pizza in the oven.

I'm not ok with alignment restrictions ruining things I do care about, like Paladins and Monks. It's like having the food you like only served with seafood(which you hate) mixed in with it.

It is only "ruined" if you would do something like this at the restaurant:

You: Hmm...I normally love ravioli, but it says it comes with a cream sauce.  I don't like cream sauce.
Server: Sir, you can certainly order it with a different sauce, perhaps our house marinara, or even with no sauce at all.
You: Hmm...no...its too late...my meal is ruined.

It is very easy to ignore the alignment restriction.  Trust me.  My own group did it for the playtest, and the meal tasted great!

However, if they put things into the core (such as Rogue using non-Magic forced movement), then they are forcing all groups to use it.

To continue the restaurant analogy (because, again, I am hungry), what you are saying is this:

Server: Welcome to Dungeons & Dragons restaurant.  Today's special is shrimp, which means we put shrimp in everything.
You: Ugg...I hate shrimp.  I'll just have a water.
Server: One water with shrimp coming right up!

If rogues get a power that involves forced movement, just don't use that one power.  It won't be a problem, because no one else in your group likes such powers either!
If there is forced movement in Next i will likely not buy it. I can handle pushback assuming you go with him, knockdown and the like but much more and its a deal breaker.

I guess there are people who wouldn't go to the restaurant just because it serves fish (even though in its 40 year history it has always served fish).
Take Vancian casting.  You can say it's fish on the menu, because there will be other classes that don't use vancian and maybe even a wizard option that doesn't use vancian.  Or you can call it fish in my entree because if somebody else at my table is playing a vancian wizard, he's still going to make it next to impossible for me to have a challenging fight when it's the only encounter of the day, or for me to push on to an 8th encounter without getting crushed, or for my DM to balance the encounter with the BBEG because he has no idea how many spells the wizard will have left or which ones.

Well, you have two options.  Learn to deal with the fact that your friend really likes to use Vancian casting, or only play with people who don't like Vancian casting.

This works at the restaurant too.  Many restaurants have certain entrees that take a long time to prepare.  You might not like that, because you are hungry and don't want to wait.  So either try to convince your friends to not order those meals, or learn to deal.  Because otherwise you saying that the mere presence of this meal on the menu is enough to prevent you from eating there.
Monsters and PCs currently have too few HP to allow for any real tactical depth at this stage of the playtest.

Fixed in bold.

Have you heard? The game isn't finished yet. In fact different packets have ran the gambit between too many and too few HPs. Don't despair. I'm sure they'll get to it.

There will be a basic game published, the "core." Some parts of that core will be absolutely incompatible with some players' preferences, and they will be so essential to the game's design that no module will be able to remove them. That's mustard some diners won't eat.

If you are one of these people, who despises the very basics of the hamburger being served, to the extent that you won't eat it, have fun going to another restaurant. There are other restaurants out there, you know...

Also, some condiments can be easily removed from the burger. Mustard can't.

Why, in all the heavens, would you go and put mustard on a burger, then decide you didn't want it, and then try to scrape it off?



You wôuldnt, but that is what is happening with 5E right now. Monsters and PCs have too few HP to allow for any real tactical depth. Houseruling an increase in HP would be the same as receiving a hamburger with mustard on it and then scraping it off.

Are you saying that even after doubling the HP for 1st level heroes and boosting the HP for monsters you would still be able to taste the remnants of the too low hp?  I find that hard to swallow.

On the contrary, I'm relatively happy with the current state of DDN. A bit too many kluge jobs for core inclusion, but nothing a good editor can't fix.

But I'm not foolish enough to claim that means it's going to be that way for others. I think the designers have made it clear: they are baking Vancian magic into the core. They are not going to mechanically balance the classes. They aren't going to nerf healing. They are going to make combats shorter. They're keeping bounded accuracy and adv./disadv. These are some issues so essential to the game design that no module, short of an entire rules rewrite with new monster manual, etc, would "solve" them. For some people, those are dealbreakers, and they're going to avoid heartache if they simply leave now.
Also, some condiments can be easily removed from the burger. Mustard can't.

Why, in all the heavens, would you go and put mustard on a burger, then decide you didn't want it, and then try to scrape it off?



You wôuldnt, but that is what is happening with 5E right now. Monsters and PCs have too few HP to allow for any real tactical depth. Houseruling an increase in HP would be the same as receiving a hamburger with mustard on it and then scraping it off.

Are you saying that even after doubling the HP for 1st level heroes and boosting the HP for monsters you would still be able to taste the remnants of the too low hp?  I find that hard to swallow.




Low HP is lame. The mustard isn't the low HP, it's the lame. Houseruling doesn't entirely scrape the lame off the hamburger.
...whatever

Take Vancian casting.  You can say it's fish on the menu, because there will be other classes that don't use vancian and maybe even a wizard option that doesn't use vancian.  Or you can call it fish in my entree because if somebody else at my table is playing a vancian wizard, he's still going to make it next to impossible for me to have a challenging fight when it's the only encounter of the day, or for me to push on to an 8th encounter without getting crushed, or for my DM to balance the encounter with the BBEG because he has no idea how many spells the wizard will have left or which ones.

Well, you have two options.  Learn to deal with the fact that your friend really likes to use Vancian casting, or only play with people who don't like Vancian casting.

This works at the restaurant too.  Many restaurants have certain entrees that take a long time to prepare.  You might not like that, because you are hungry and don't want to wait.  So either try to convince your friends to not order those meals, or learn to deal.  Because otherwise you saying that the mere presence of this meal on the menu is enough to prevent you from eating there.



I agree completely.  Which is why the next sentence I wrote said "I'm not coming down on either side of this argument."  But at the same time, what if there was a third choice?  What if there were a way that my friend who likes fish could order fish, without the fishy smell filling the whole room and inhibiting my enjoyment of my non-fish entree?  That way we could both eat what we want, and enjoy each other's company while we eat it.  Is the appropriate outcome for the fish-eaters to say "screw you, you don't have to eat it so quit your complaining," or for us to sit down together and talk about how this third way might be achieved, how we might cook a fish that tasted like fish but didn't smell like fish?  Maybe such a thing is impossible, but squelching the debate by saying those who disagree with you are unreasonably demanding fish be stricken from the menu isn't   going to result in a better game.  Now maybe some of us are so terribly allergic that we can't all be made happy at the same table.  But we should be wary of painting more people with that brush than we need to.

Take Shiroiken here.  He feels that Rogues with "non-Magic forced movement" is fish in his entree, because they're forcing all groups to use it and he apparently believes that his fun will be spoiled if a fellow player with a rogue breaks his suspension of disbelief (correct me if I'm incorrectly extrapolating your point).  On the other hand, other people aren't interested in playing a system where they can't play a rogue that gets cool toys in combat.  Maybe you can add weaponized skills for rogues as a module, but then you've got to also add a module for every other class in the game that adds an equal amount of extra mechanical oomph.  Same goes for people who want fighters with resource management decisions.  Modules aren't a panacea that you can just slap on and call it a day, and the devs don't exactly have a stellar record of keeping balance.  



You are correct in my preference. I have no problem with whatever other groups do (it's their game, not mine). If they have a module option for the rogue to perform forced movement, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. That's why I want the core to be as small as possible. I know my preferences are not universal, and probably not even close to the majority. However, by making the core small, and adding options via. Modules, then each group can be (somewhat) happy.

As far as balance goes, I suggest using modules as a guildline for each other, but not tying any module to another unless necessary. If some groups like the idea of Rogue Forced Movement, but hate the tied in Fighter equivalent, they are stuck making a hard choice (use the module, not use the module, or houserule). By not linking them, each group can choose for themselves what to include. If that makes their game unbalanced, that's up to them.

However, if they put things into the core (such as Rogue using non-Magic forced movement), then they are forcing all groups to use it.

Bolded for emphasis... Really? You honestly believe that?

Interesting.




Clarification: they are either forcing me to use it or House-rule it. By definition, anything in the core rules that doesn't have a module to replace it, is assumed for use in all games. The other classes will be balanaced with that ability, so just houseruling it away would cause a balance issue. I could see them making a module to remove the ability, but to me it seems wiser to use modules to add to, rather than subract from, the core rules.
I agree completely.  Which is why the next sentence I wrote said "I'm not coming down on either side of this argument."  But at the same time, what if there was a third choice?  What if there were a way that my friend who likes fish could order fish, without the fishy smell filling the whole room and inhibiting my enjoyment of my non-fish entree?  That way we could both eat what we want, and enjoy each other's company while we eat it.  Is the appropriate outcome for the fish-eaters to say "screw you, you don't have to eat it so quit your complaining," or for us to sit down together and talk about how this third way might be achieved, how we might cook a fish that tasted like fish but didn't smell like fish?  Maybe such a thing is impossible, but squelching the debate by saying those who disagree with you are unreasonably demanding fish be stricken from the menu isn't   going to result in a better game.  Now maybe some of us are so terribly allergic that we can't all be made happy at the same table.  But we should be wary of painting more people with that brush than we need to.

Yeah, sorry for picking on you like that.

I totally agree: the angry "My way or the highway" arguments around here are not constructive at all.  If people could put their egos aside and just come together and talk about this game we clearly all enjoy, we might actually get something positive accomplished.

I happen to know you can totally cook a fish that tastes like a fish without the unpleasant fishy odor.  Soaking it in some rice wine before you cook is one way (making sure you only buy the freshest fish is also a big help).  I'm not sure how the rice wine example would translate to D&D, but you better believe the fresh fish statement is a metaphor.

Shiroiken

If the rogue gets 5 special abilities over 10 levels, chosen from 15 in core +more later in splat and 7 of them break your disbelief (forced move/goad) but 8 are ok (sneak attack, hide in plain sight) would that still be a problem?

I ask because you and your table could play a core only rogue wwith out those powers then... No forcing them on you

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

I think that, as someone else noted, modularity should be for adding to, not removing from, the core. The basic principal that if something can bed removed from core, it should be removed from core, is sound.
I think that, as someone else noted, modularity should be for adding to, not removing from, the core. The basic principal that if something can bed removed from core, it should be removed from core, is sound.



If that is to be true, than the core needs to not be in conflict with large sections of the D&D community.
...whatever
The olny way to do that is to make the core by itself unplayable... no magic system, no poweres for classes, then add mod systems for everything... infact there would be no core justa book of options thst each table builds its own game from... a striped down more complex and needing more books.version of gurps

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

The olny way to do that is to make the core by itself unplayable... no magic system, no poweres for classes, then add mod systems for everything... infact there would be no core justa book of options thst each table builds its own game from... a striped down more complex and needing more books.version of gurps


I don't really disagree, but then I believe that trying to do what they've promised with one system isn't possible. 
...whatever
What they've proposed in some press releases (making a system which supports all editions equally, or even at all) is, indeed, impossible. The question then becomes which population segment - including potential newbies - they can most afford to alienate. I think the playtest progression so far makes the answer to that very clear.
GM for Powergamers (sorry it won't let me quote you):

I would find that acceptable, but I still wouldn't be 100% happy because in a game where I'm not the DM, another player could wheedle for use of such abilites because they are "core." If they expect to make a game to unite players of all editions, I suspect that a large number of players will feel like I would. Not happy, but acceptable to the compromise (a truly good compromise leaves no one happy). This is why making a small core is such a good idea. It leaves less for individuals to be unhappy about.

The olny way to do that is to make the core by itself unplayable... no magic system, no poweres for classes, then add mod systems for everything... infact there would be no core justa book of options thst each table builds its own game from... a striped down more complex and needing more books.version of gurps



The best way to do this would be for the core rules to resemble Basic D&D. They would probably have to choose between Vancian and AEDU for the core spell system, but should make it clear the other spell system Modules are available. Special abilities would be minimized, such as Fighter having their new Parry feature plus Martial Dice, the Rogue having Skill Specialization plus Martial Dice, the Cleric having Turn Undead and Spells, and the wizard having Spells (plus maybe something else, but probably not). That's it. Everything else, including Manuevers, Sneak Attack, Channel Divinity, Rituals, etc, would be Modules. In fact, that would probably make for a good Starter Boxed Set.

What they've proposed in some press releases (making a system which supports all editions equally, or even at all) is, indeed, impossible.

I am addressing this not just to PD, but others who keep going on about the fact that WotC is "doomed to fail" because they will never accomplishing such a goal...

Why is it that they should not strive for a lofty goal? Even if they know they cannot reach it perfectly. At least with it as a guiding principle they have a valuable tool to direct their path whenever they start to stray.

Look. My goal is to be a billionaire. I'm not there yet. Likely never will be. But that shouldn't keep me from trying. And I'll get as close as I can before my time is done.
Why is it that they should not strive for a lofty goal? Even if they know they cannot reach it perfectly.

Because it wastes time and resources and may end up alienating not only that necessary slice of the market who were going to lose anyway, but also that chunk who now don't trust you because you lied. Not to mention that the struggle to accomplish an impossible task may actually disrupt otherwise decent work. For instance, if the clean model DDN gets muddied with token mechanics meant to appease fans who won't be satisfied unless all classes are strictly mechanically balanced, everyone loses.
[Because it wastes time and resources and may end up alienating not only that necessary slice of the market who were going to lose anyway, but also that chunk who now don't trust you because you lied. Not to mention that the struggle to accomplish an impossible task may actually disrupt otherwise decent work. For instance, if the clean model DDN gets muddied with token mechanics meant to appease fans who won't be satisfied unless all classes are strictly mechanically balanced, everyone loses.

Hmm... I think that, if I were you and I were reading this post, I'd right now be chiming in with 'whenever you successfully market and sell a multi-million dollar household name product then I'll listen' or 'whenever you become a published academic who's respected for their consumer behavior insight we'll talk'.

I'll refrain from being you, though.

Danny

As it happens, I'm a minor-league academic who is respected for his insight into consumer behavior, particularly with regard to the adoption of rhetorical systems. Would you like references?

Besides which, the comment in the other thread was directed specifically at those declaring it was "easy" to write compelling material. Asking for them to demonstrate that claim was logical. I, on the other hand, am claiming it is impossible to satisfy people with mutually exclusive desires...a very different proposition.
Ok, if you really hate pizza, and think it doesn't even count as food, would you complain an italian resterant needs to take it off there menu before you would order the eggplant parm off it? If you were a vegatarian could you go eat at a stake house that had a buffet full of vegeis and pasta? I know personaly I hate sea food, but I can sit with my girlfriend well she eats swordfish and enjoy my chicken parm. Now to tell you why I bring this up. I love the warlord class, and I hate alignment restrictions, I dont mind come and get it or postioning strike. I love rituels that anyone can learn. Now the same way I don't ask that all seafood be struck from the menu of every place I eat, I would buy next if the 9alignments are there, and palden, monk and assassin had alignments baked in. But if there is no warlord, no non magic forced movement and fighters cant have nice things I will not. See I wont eat at a reaserant that only serves seafood, becuse I do not like it, but I will eat at a reaserant that searves fish AND food I like. So everyone who says "I'm outof next" think fora moment, if you can choose to just not order the fish, and if someone els elikes fish just let them order it



I think right now the problem is that the fish is in everything. You can choose Fish sandwiches, Fish pasta, Fish Parmesan, Fish cakes, etc... Those that don't like fish are just out of luck...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
This thread is making me hungry.
I think right now the problem is that the fish is in everything. You can choose Fish sandwiches, Fish pasta, Fish Parmesan, Fish cakes, etc... Those that don't like fish are just out of luck...

Unfortunately for you, "fish" in this case is "D&D". So the only solution for someone who doesn't like "fish" (as you put it) is to go eat somewhere else.

Sign In to post comments