|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 11:55AM
#841
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2009
|
I'm not saying that it is universal. I'm not saying all roll-happy DMs are the same. That isn't the point.
Yes you are. Yes, you did. And yes, it is.
The point is that you said that playing the way he plays doens't do any harm to anyone's game. My point is that when he as a DM pushes this onto a player or players who feel that the whole exercise is tedious, lacking in fun and generally contra to how we roleplay, he is doing harm to someone's game.
Just his own. And since he has the right to run the game the way he sees fit (as your own signature acknowledges), what precisely is the problem?
Just like if you were in my game and I refused to let you go out and buy a castle wall or whatever it is you want out of a game this page.
Again, so what? If I didn't like what you were doing in your game, I have the right to leave and find another game. Its not like you're the only game in town, so what exactly is the problem?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 11:57AM
#842
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2001
|
Perhaps it is time to close this thread. Basically, the argument is just repetitive and is getting more personal. Let this thread die, please.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 12:04PM
#843
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2005
|
Your own statement defeats your point. The value of every rule's usefulness is entirely subjective, period. Rule Zero means that if you don't want to use a rule, you don't have to. So if you find a putrescense chart in the DMG and don't want to use it, out it goes. I've already pointed out the uselessness of the "they could have done other things" argument, so I won't rehash it.
So are you simply unfamiliar with the concept of opportunity costs, or are you deciding to pretend that they don't exist because it suits your argument?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 12:17PM
#844
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2009
|
So are you just unfamiliar with the concept of opportunity costs, or are you deciding to pretend that they don't exist because it suits your argument?
Neither. I am saying that they are irrelevant to the argument.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 12:18PM
#845
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2003
|
The problem is that I just wasted 3-6 hours of your time doing things you don't enjoy. In that instant, I hurt you game. The fact that you can leave or just never come back doesn't negate the ennui I have already inflicted upon you.
What you're saying sounds akin to saying 'well, these cracked ribs I got will heal, so driving with a cell phone doesn't harm anyone because it didn't permenantly harm me. I can go out driving without a cell phone tomorrow and not break people's ribs."
Sig to be rebuilt soonThe Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 12:19PM
#846
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2003
|
Perhaps it is time to close this thread. Basically, the argument is just repetitive and is getting more personal. Let this thread die, please.
This thread should have been dead by page 5. The fact that it isn't after a dozen visits by the mods means they're keeping it alive purely to keep a dozen copycat threads from springing up from it's blood.
Sig to be rebuilt soonThe Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 12:28PM
#847
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2009
|
The problem is that I just wasted 3-6 hours of your time doing things you don't enjoy. In that instant, I hurt you game. The fact that you can leave or just never come back doesn't negate the ennui I have already inflicted upon you.
You make it sound as if, in response to the "ennui" you've "inflicted" on me, I'm going to go home, sit down in a tub full of warm bath-water, and open up the veins in my wrists. So you're a bad player who wasted a day of game time; I kick you out, you never show up in my game again, and you never have any sort of impact on my campaign other than you give myself and the remaining players something to make jokes about later. Big deal.
Were you honestly this traumatized by your bad convention experience that it colors your game play to this day?
Once again, your own personal experience is not universal, and thus should not be used as the basis of overreaching blanket statements.
What you're saying sounds akin to saying 'well, these cracked ribs I got will heal, so driving with a cell phone doesn't harm anyone because it didn't permenantly harm me. I can go out driving without a cell phone tomorrow and not break people's ribs."
I asked you earlier if you know what argumentum ad baculum means. Now I'd like to know if you understand the definition of reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps if you showed up at my game and started chucking hand grenades at my players, the comparison would be valid.
Which reminds me... You still haven't answered my question regarding the roving horde of assassins who come to your house and force you to play the way they want to as opposed to the way you want to...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 12:47PM
#848
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2003
|
Are we back to simply responding to things that were never said?
How does 'I screwed up your game time, with no long lasting effects' turn into 'I drove you to suicide', exactly?
Do you know what 'the Chewbacca Defense' means? It's not in the psych 101 book all the other logical fallacies that keep getting misused by this board to 'win' arguments came out of, but it's close.
Sig to be rebuilt soonThe Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 12:48PM
#849
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
Your own statement defeats your point. The value of every rule's usefulness is entirely subjective, period. Rule Zero means that if you don't want to use a rule, you don't have to. So if you find a putrescense chart in the DMG and don't want to use it, out it goes. I've already pointed out the uselessness of the "they could have done other things" argument, so I won't rehash it.
In either case, your campaign is thus not "hurt" at all.
You still haven't addressed the issue of costs.
You have to pay the devs to come up with these rules. You have to pay to have these books produced. Every page you add to the book costs money. And since I'm adding your chart of putrescence, why not a chapter about the details of medieval economics, and then another one about castle-building, well now I might as well have rules for how to effectively govern the village that has sprung up around said castle, I'll need an army now so let's add another chapter for mass combat rules...
Pretty soon I have a book that costs twice as much, and is full of information that is useless to most players. No one wants to pay for something that is useless. Some people don't buy the books at all because they can no longer afford it. Others buy the core books, realize the books are full of useless crap, and don't buy any more 4e books after that. Now the company is losing profits. Now you have hurt them by affecting profits, and me because I can no longer afford any books to add to my campaign.
So where do you draw the line? I don't see too many people asking for a detailed economic model for all levels and variants of fantasy worlds, but somehow you think that WotC should drop what they're doing and cater specifically to your very unique campaign setting.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
May 21, 2009 - 12:52PM
#850
|
|
|
About $0.05 per page, per PHB. At 1,000 PHBs, it's $50. At 1,000,000 PHBs, it's $50,000. Of course, the consumers pay this cost. The people who may, or may not, want these rules. The company has to judge if they gain enough consumers to justify this cost.
Congratulations. You've finally made an argument against such inclusions that I can accept.
So right there you agreed that "they could have done other things" argument is valid. Opportunity costs are monetary costs. WotC pays people by the word or by the hour to work on these things. They have X amount of money to spend. How they spend that money is a cost. If they spend it developing things that I won't use (for whatever subjective reason) then it "hurts" my game. The point here is that it is WotC's job to spend the limited amount of money they have (whatever sum that may be) designing and developing material that will be useful to the boradest group of their userbase.
As for my statement defeating my point - come off it. My statement was my point - the subjective usefulness of any rule/system/chart/what-have-you means that any game - mine, yours, Vaalingarde's, anyone's - can be "hurt" by choices made by the designers/developers. Your game (if you choose to play 4E) has been "hurt" by the designers/developers not including a nuanced skill system or whatever it is that you want. My game has, on the flipside, been made better because my players don't need to be bogged down in systems to accomplish things that just aren't that central to the kind of stories they like. Subjective. The trick is to listen to the largest (and most often, not the most vocal) part of your audience and try to make as many of them happy as possible. I happen to be firmly in the middle fo the audience that WotC aimed this edition at. You aren't. You have been given, time and again in this thread and others, workable solutions to providing at least some of the functionality you seek but have continually waved them off as "hand-waving". Well, then, sir, you will never be completely happy with this edition. Period. End of story. Fin. The masses have spoken and they told WotC that what they wanted was a system with detailed rules for combat but a much more free-form system for everything else.
|
|
|
