Community

Oct 11, 2009 -- 7:56AM, GhostStepper wrote:

For example, last week we had an entire session involving the party getting a room in the ritziest hotel in Hell. Our goliath bard had an orange suit made for him by a demonic spider tailor, my 350 lb barbarian put on an evening gown she bought early in the campaign and our dark creeper wizard cast an illusion on himself to make it look like he was wearing a white tux. We then stormed the bar; a den of scum and villiany filled with devils, angels, dragons and all sorts of monstrosities from around the multiverse.

A dozen suitors bought me shots made of fermented unicorn blood, the bard was approached by the infernal mafia, and after i drank the wizard under the table i attempted to get up on stage to sing hell's version of karaoke when the bard kept refusing to give everyone a show. My rolls sucked and the bard had to bite the bullet and come save me some humiliation. It was a hilariously fun session and no one drew a weapon.

Fair enough. Although I'd still say your the exception rather then the rule

Oct 11, 2009 -- 7:56AM, GhostStepper wrote:

Stormwind fallacy.

Yeah, yeah. I know everyone here defends power gaming and optimising to the umpteenth degree. But I still hold that a focus on mechanics with a secondary interest in roleplaying is counter to indepth roleplaying. Just as people who play D&D and have no interest in optimising or roleplaying do exist. So do those who roleplay to the highest standard possible and blow me and everyone I know out of the water, and yet are able to create optimised characters without compromising their roleplay. Simply because both of those extremes exist, doesn't negate the general rule.

But of course, no-one likes to be told "I find you're creation of mechanical objects with roleplay existing largely to justify your out of character choices to be lacking."

Oct 11, 2009 -- 3:06PM, Yhokhi wrote:

Actually, the opposite is true. Rather than 'restrict story elements narrowly', D&D strives to broaden story elements as widely as possible. Thats the whole point of the 'points-of-light' design conceit.

You're talking about D&D, that part of my post was talking about LFR. The two are different IMO. Your average home game does share some common attributes with LFR, but for the large part they're very different beasts IMO.

So I don't actually disagree with much of what you say.

Oct 11, 2009 -- 3:06PM, Yhokhi wrote:

If the flavor was too overbearing and too inflexible with no room for variations, it would prevent players from gaming experiences that interested them personally.

Sure. And fluff is quite divorced from mechanics in 4th ed. And I have never complained before when all we get is largely crunch articles. The point of my posts weren't that crunch is bad, but that it was dissapointing to find so much anger directed at a fluff article, that can as you demonstrate, be ignored if so desired.

Oct 11, 2009 -- 4:14PM, CelticMutt wrote:

it was dramn ridiculous leaving it out for a later article.

I disagree.

Oct 11, 2009 -- 4:14PM, CelticMutt wrote:

It doesn't matter.

I disagree.

And that is simply why I find the anger directed to the article (once more by you, as you hold yourself up as an example of a reasonable voice) unreasonable.

And I'm also well aware you can say my position is equally unreasonable. I'll disagree with it of course, just as you likely disagree with me saying your position is unreasonable.

I'd say this discussion (for my part, anyway) has run its course into "we need to agree to disagree." I feel I've explained my position so everyone can understand where I'm coming from. I also believe I see where everyone else is coming from (there are those here who want no fluff, there are those here who wanted fluff second or third, there are those here who wanted a feat or two with the article and found the article disatisfying without it). I clearly don't agree with any of those 3 positions (having to wait 3 days IMO doesn't warrant multiple threads of dismay and anger, with one of those threads reaching 8 pages at a very quick rate). But disagreeing with a position doesn't mean I don't understand your position.

Oct 11, 2009 -- 6:32PM, King_Nate wrote:

Oct 10, 2009 -- 5:14PM, JohnLynch wrote:

Blah Blah Blah

 Thank you for misquoting me to make your point.

 

If I misunderstood your post, I apologise. It sounded like hysterical doom and gloom to me. That the end of DDi or Dragon was coming simply because WotC produced 9 pages of fluff. But if that wasn't what you were saying, then I apologise.

Oct 11, 2009 -- 7:09PM, King_Nate wrote:

In order to not have three separate Assassin files I had to wait until the end of the month to get all my assassin information in one pdf file, the same looks to be true with the Vistani. I guess I could learn to better organize my files and memorize which Vistani files hold which information I am looking for or maybe I could just have everything in one file.

I suppose it might be too late for you, but you could have looked into programs like this one that allow you to split and collate PDFs as you desire.   Making it easy to have just one file articles like the Assassin or the Vistani, or to extract the errata'd versions of any particular article from a finished magazine.

Oh well...