PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:29:31 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:iMudnVWwPODe38HfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
>> > There's nothing in the Paladins code that requires adherance to
>> > bullshit romantic notions of chivalry,
>>
>> You just hit the nail squarely on the head, while identifying a common
>> problem with GM attitudes towards paladins.
>
>Well, yes, the nail has been hit squarely on the head, from my perspective.
>But I have to wonder, what is the point of the paladin, if NOT to be the
>prototypical chivalrous and honorable knight?

Because the prototypical knight you allude to is a work of myth.

>Is there some indication that your interpretation is more valid than any
>other interpretation of the class?

His interpretation allows for the class to actually BE PLAYED, as opposed
to only being usable by hypothetical perfect humans.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:18:20 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:2hap51lbrgtss6c6hf91fk7v551nmrrrse@4ax.com...
>> >> Jeff is suggesting just removing the items outright, which is not a
>> >> metagame solution.
>> >
>> >Of course it is.
>>
>> If you can't even tell the difference between game and metagame, I'd
>> suggest a rapid exit from the newsgroup where you clearly have no
>business.
>
>In this situation, there is NO in game problem, at all. The characters have
>some rage berries, and I'm sure THEY are quite happy to have them. In this
>situation, the metagame is where the problem lay, the players have a natural
>tendancy to compare characters(like most players do), and one is
>overshadowing the rest, and the CAUSE of this inter-player difficulty stems
>partially from the existance of those rage berries, something in the game.
>
>This is a problem whos effects are felt at the metagame level, NOT a problem
>of the game, even though the cause of the problem lay within the game.

Thanks for telling us things that we already knew, Jeff. If there were no
game, then there would be no metagame problems. Therefore I guess it makes
sense to you that if there are metagame problems, you should just stop
playing the game?

Metagame problem, metagame solution. If the berries are not causing a
problem in the game, then they do not need to be removed from the game.

>> > There is no logical/rational/non-hamfisted explanation
>>
>> There have been many, just none given by you.
>
>Name them. Name the ones that are to be considered "non-hamfisted". Rage
>berries that hatch into ragemonsters and wipe out a town? HAMFISTED.

Again, why must the berries hatch into ragemonsters? They could turn into
Rot Grubs, or be the eggs of Spriggans, or maybe they are the last
surviving seed pods of a Wolf In Sheep's Clothing.

You can hamfist a good idea by making it stupid, like ragemonsters.
Delicacy makes for a more interesting experience, and better roleplaying.

>You seem to be of the mistaken viewpoint that I think that hamfisted ideas
>like what have been presented are automatically unworthy simply because they
>are hamfisted.

No, I'm under the correct impression that you don't care whether something
is hamfisted or not because you aren't a very good DM, and not only are
incapable of coming up with elegant solutions to problems, but see the
inelegant ones as being just fine.

> Any idea that actually
>uses the berries in the manner in which they were intended is not going to
>work quickly enough(because of the sense of conservation that the characters
>have).

If the berries never get used, then they are even less of a problem, aren't
they? Do you remove an artifact from the game that the players have not
encountered and have never heard of because if they ever DO find it, it
will be a problem?

>> >You're drawing a line of distinction that is impossible to draw.
>>
>> Maybe impossible for you to draw. Nobody else I can think of has any
>> trouble distinguishing between problems with the players and problems with
>> the characters. Of course, given how you "role play", I shouldn't be
>> surprised.
>
>The game is causing a metagame problem. The only way to deal with it is to
>deal with the CAUSE, and that is found IN THE GAME.

The cause is that the players are suffering from the green envy monster.
The berries are the source of the problem, but they are not the cause. If
this was an in-game problem, then the berries would indeed be the cause.

> What are you going to
>do to solve the problem from the metagame perspective? Talk to the players,
>get them to ignore the fact that the barbarian has a ready supply of rages
>on his belt which is contributing to a severe imbalance of power between the
>characters?

So suddenly it *IS* an in-game problem? Can't have it both ways, Jeff. If
the barbarian is too strong because of the berries, then yes, an in-game
solution is necesary. But that isn't the case. The players are PERCEVING an
inbalance where none exists. The problem is not the characters, the problem
is the players. Deal with the players, not the characters.

> Or are you going to at least get rid of the berries?

If the berries are not causing a problem, then there is no need to remove
of them. So no, I would not get rid of the berries.

>> > it's going to be
>> >quite obviously percieved for what it is, a cooked up kludge to rid the
>> >party of the rest of their ex-berries now eggs of doom.
>>
>> Who said anything about "of doom"? They need not hatch into the Tarrasque
>> to be an interesting event. Hell, you could milk it even further by having
>> the hatching take place while the characters are downstairs having a drink
>> in the pub, return to their room, and find a bunch of broken egg shells
>> with some trails of slime leading off.
>
>However the implementation, the basic story itself is KLUDGY, AWKWARD AND
>*HAMFISTED*.

Sorry, no.

> Berries that aren't berries all of a sudden? Nothing to ever
>indicate they were anything but berries, and all of a sudden they've hatched
>into who knows what?

Unknown things that looked like berries. Could be anything, particularly in
a D&D universe. Do your players automatically get complete knowledge of
everything that falls into their possession?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1113425867.650155.250440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Keith Davies wrote:

>> You might look at the book _Talion: Revenant_ by Mike Stackpole. The
>> Talion Justices have the ability to draw a person's soul out, killing
>> them instantly. Many people consider it a special death touch
> attack...
>> the Justices know better.
>
> Interesting. Might check that out once I finish up "Kushiel's Dart."
> (Jasin recommended it last year; just now getting around to it.)

Either of you care to give a brief review on these? Some spoilers are okay.
This group's book recommendations have been solid so far.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> "Give me that, you craven!" *rips blade from rogue's hand* "Now run
>> like the coward you are while *real* men take care of this."
>
> Wow. I've never been interested in halfling paladins until this post.
> Great story.

Forgot to say.

That's the bit that I found amusing. IIRC Kian's character was a
close-to-six-foot-tall human. Having a halfling rip the blade from him
while he went scurrying off (not his fault! He just failed a save vs.
fear! But Beau was in a bad mood and needed a better weapon) and send
him scurrying, then charging this demon/undead thing holding the rapier
two-handed was an interesting image.

I pictured him using it much like a greatsword -- greatsword use
involves a lot more point work than most people think.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Rupert Boleyn said

> I've found, over the years, that characters that don't get along with
> mine tend to have accidents involving wells. No idea why.

Because you're a vicious sadistic bastard who even scares me. That's why.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> > Classic! Between you and Mal posting your paladin examples, I
> think
>> > the point is well-illustrated that you can kick ass with the class
>> > without going cookie-cutter.
>>
>> I like to think so.
>>
>> The guy who normally played Sir Beau did play him as a more or less
>> 'typical' paladin -- nice to animals, donated to the orphanage, etc.
>> A tad whimsical, perhaps; he was a 'generic' paladin (no god), his
>> holy symbol was a happy face.
>
> Worth a chuckle, but I think your portrayal was an improvement.
> Nothing wrong with whimsy in the right game, though.

I liked him better my way myself, to be honest. 'Whimsical' has never
really fit my image of a paladin.

OTOH, I'm not above having paladins infiltrate a castle and assassinate
Lord High Badass, either.

>> > I thought of it more as a ritual to "purify the world" by absorbing
>> > the evil flesh into his own sacred body. Lots of paint, drums,
>> > piercing of flesh, fire, snakes, trances, etc.
>>
>> Ah, utter destruction of the evil.
>>
>> 'Eating' is more often associated with acquiring the properties of
>> the creature eaten. You might eat the heart of a bull to gain
>> stamina or strength, the heart of your enemy to acquire his ferocity,
>> the corpse of a shrieker for intrinsic poison resistance (yes, too
>> much nethack lately). Eating the tongue of a dragon (IIRC) could
>> give you the ability to speak to birds (and other animals? I
>> forget).
>
> You know, there might be a highly-specialized PrC in this, somewhere. I
> have a savage jungle continent (don't we all?) where this sort of thing
> would fit in well. A cannibalistic spirit-warrior that gains abilities
> after eating the remains of creatures he has killed.

Several ways to handle this leap to mind.

The first is that they're just different material components for his
paladin spells. He'd probably have to fetch them the first few times
(or maybe on gaining a new level of spells), but I'd start handwaving
them after a while. Even if it's a *dangerous* shopping trip, it's
still just a shopping trip.

The second is that the feats he takes are tied to the spirits of the
creatures involved. The 'Heart of the Dragon' feat has a prereq 'must
kill a dragon and eat its heart'. This should probably be a pretty
decent feat.

A third way is that he (potentially) gains abilities from creatures he
eats. There's a chance for each creature of a type that eating (of) it
grants him certain bennies. Nethack works this way -- eating corpses is
a common way of gaining intrinsics. I don't like it here, though; it
hinges a lot on chance and, while it adds flavor to the game, detracts
some from things because I can see it becoming a scavenger hunt of
sorts. "Okay, now let's find a $foo, because I want $fooability."

>> However, as you said, you might do it to prevent revivification of
>> that particular spirit. It'd probably be a long ritual, and I'd
>> suggest a potentially dangerous one (the guys with the spears
>> standing by are not just honor guards; if you *lose* and the spirit
>> possesses *you*...). The bonuses to saves that paladins get help, of
>> course.
>
> Nice. Put that cohort to work. "J'ganga. Take the spear. If the
> witchman's ghost consumes me, utter the word of protection and cut me
> from groin to throat. Burn my remains and scatter the ashes into a
> west-flowing stream. Look for me in the afterlife."

/me likes this.

"I'm going to do this. It's risky, so if it goes wrong kill my body
fast. Don't worry about *me*, I'll be gone by then."

>> > Yeah. I really wanna play this guy now.
>>
>> He'd be interesting, yeah.
>>
>> You might look at the book _Talion: Revenant_ by Mike Stackpole. The
>> Talion Justices have the ability to draw a person's soul out, killing
>> them instantly. Many people consider it a special death touch
>> attack... the Justices know better.
>
> Interesting. Might check that out once I finish up "Kushiel's Dart."
> (Jasin recommended it last year; just now getting around to it.)

It's on my 'need something to read, that'll do' list -- a book I can
pick up and read over again to keep my eyes busy. Apparently it's his
first fantasy book. Fairly decent fluff, really, but there's some good
stuff in there to pillage for gaming.

The Justices (branch of the Talions) would suit paladin's fairly well.
*Definitely* on the harsh side, some of them, hard-bitten cynics who
still have to do what they can to maintain justice. I'd say they tend
toward the LN side of things rather than LG, and I suspect there're even
some that could be considered LE. But they all work together.

Hrm... maybe not LE; there are problems with a Justice committing
(certain) evil acts. OTOH, that could be in light of the Justice's
personality; they seem to be judged independently of each other.

>> Incidentally, I had a 'Holy Warrior' class. Associated with a god,
>> the HW looked a lot like a fighter but got to use two domain powers
>> of that god, got divine channeling (replaces Turn Undead IMC; TU is a
>> manifestation of channeling), and got divine feats instead of fighter
>> feats. No built-in spellcasting. It was intended as a more or less
>> generic replacement for paladin (which became a prestige class, where
>> it belonged -- prereqs Good and Law domain powers, +3 BAB,
>> Kno(Religion)), so every religion could have a reasonable-looking
>> holy warrior.
>>
>> I've since subsumed this into my class framework. Now a Holy Warrior
>> is just a fighter-type who's taken the Godsworn feat; he has to buy
>> the domain powers with his feats. Godsworn gives divine channeling
>> and adds divine feats to the character's class list. I've got more
>> or less generic-form 'holy warrior', 'holy arcanist', 'holy
>> skillmonkey'-type classes that way.
>
> Sounds like it would be worth exploring. This is on your site, I take
> it?

http://www.kjdavies.org/rpg/rules/classes/index.html
http://www.kjdavies.org/rpg/rules/classes/framework.html

It's out of date. I'm missing a bunch of the feats and such that I've
referred to here, and there are number of changes to be made to the
feats I do have. Domains have largely gone away, for example -- the
spells are now parts of various spell paths, and the domain powers are
now (mostly) divine feats of various types.

Of course, spells work differently now too, and spellcasting, but that's
not on there yet.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> 'Eating' is more often associated with acquiring the properties of
>> the creature eaten. You might eat the heart of a bull to gain
>> stamina or strength, the heart of your enemy to acquire his ferocity,
>> the corpse of a shrieker for intrinsic poison resistance (yes, too
>> much nethack lately). Eating the tongue of a dragon (IIRC) could
>> give you the ability to speak to birds (and other animals? I
>> forget).
>
> You know, there might be a highly-specialized PrC in this, somewhere.
> I have a savage jungle continent (don't we all?) where this sort of
> thing would fit in well. A cannibalistic spirit-warrior that gains
> abilities after eating the remains of creatures he has killed.

It comes to me that 'savage jungle continent' isn't even a strict
requirement here. ISTR that certain groups of NA Indians had similar
beliefs -- eating of an enemy could grant you some of his strength.
It was related to their practice of torture; someone who withstood it
well was considered a source of strength and endurance.

No cite for it, I was reading about this in high school, IIRC.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

MisterMichael <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> That rant would have gone better with a little proofreading. Grr.

Yeah, well, since you don't prrofread you're argumenst are false.


Keith
[typos and mispellings -- in this case -- deliberate, thanks]
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> It comes to me that 'savage jungle continent' isn't even a strict
> requirement here. ISTR that certain groups of NA Indians had similar
> beliefs -- eating of an enemy could grant you some of his strength.

It's pretty popular in Germanic myths too (e.g., eating dragon hearts).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > > I was thinking something a little more specific. It is the lack of
> > > specifics, the generality of the "code" as described in the
SRD/player's
> > > handbook that makes this such a contentious subject.
> >
> > Did you ever consider the idea that maybe its not specific for a reason?
>
> To provide something for us to argue about?? 😉

To allow for various types of Paladins to be played.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
> Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>> It comes to me that 'savage jungle continent' isn't even a strict
>> requirement here. ISTR that certain groups of NA Indians had similar
>> beliefs -- eating of an enemy could grant you some of his strength.
>
> It's pretty popular in Germanic myths too (e.g., eating dragon hearts).

Heh, I mentioned that upthread -- Fafnir.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Goslin made a claim, that "there was no content to argue." Your
>> rebuttal to /that/ claim relies entirely upon personal attacks. I
>> call shenanigans.

MisterMichael wrote:
> You moronic buffoon, Goslin's claim that there was no content is part
> and parcel of the ad hominem fallacy claim in the first place!

I just re-read the subthread. Goslin was actually correct when in saying
that there was "no content to argue," because the start of the subthread
was not an argument. He was merely chatting with David Alex Lamb. Looks
like you were careless about following the thread -- as usual -- and now
you've been caught out. Your "liar, liar" claim was both fallacious and
incorrect.

> There *was* an argument tucked amid the rhetoric ....

Not according to my newsserver.

> Goslin *did* deny its existence ....

And correctly so, because nobody was arguing at the time. Just chatting.

> ... and WE ARE NOT SURPRISED because he *CONSTANTLY* engages in
> delusionary arguments of that sort as the record proves a hundred
> times over.

You are not surprised because you are a prejudiced scumbag who will
happily stoop to poisoning the well and then trying to cover it up.

> If you could show that I tried to argue "well, you're lying because
> you've lied before", you'd have a leg to stand on.

That isn't necessary to show the ad hominem fallacy, especially not when
you're accusing somebody of lying. All I need to do is show that the
personal attack is a red herring, which is nearly trivial when you
accuse an interlocutor of lying. Poor reasoning, poor rhetoric.

>> You keep telling yourself that. It's clearly a claim intended to
>> discredit him and a distraction from the main argument.

> Clearly? Horsepucky. It's certainly not a distraction, given that the
> entire issue with Goslin has been that he is an intellectually
> dishonest cur who denies all legitimate points in favor of fantasizing
> that his own claims are infallible.

So killfile him already. You're not going to convince him of anything,
nor anyone else for that matter. Frankly, you get sloppy when you keep
picking on easy targets like that; eventually, you just make a fool of
yourself like you're doing here.

> As to "intending" to discredit him, HE HAS DISCREDITED HIMSELF ....

If true, you don't need to point it out, and doing so is poor form. If
not, then you're just being your usual prejudiced scumbag self.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:F0d7e.5669$lP1.1226@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Argument to the man", takes various forms, the simplest and most easily
> > recognized and most often found form is that of the simple personal
attack
> > that has nothing to do with the argument. "You are stupid"(and all it's
> > varied forms thereof) being a prime example
>
> <falls on the floor laughing>
> No, Jeffie. *Again* we see that your GALACTIC IDIOCY has condemnned
you
> to speak empty words on a topic you understand not at all. Ad hominem is
> the name of a LOGICAL FALLACY - namely, attacking the speaker *instead* of
> his argument, the most easily recognized version of which is a simple
> personal attack (but which also often appears as "what he says is
> irrelevant, he's a {foo}"). IDIOTS who understand NOTHING confuse this
with
> "any personal attack" and run around shouting "boo, hoo! Ad hominem! Ad
> hominem!" as if it were meaningful.
>
> Here's a news flash, you incompetent *clod* - the correct term for the
> spankings you receive is RHETORIC, which is decorated liberally through
*the
> argument*, therefore decisively disqualifying my laments of your stupidity
> from any potential ad hominem fallacy.

No. You are 100% wrong. The only way a personal attack ISN'T ad hominem is
if the attack is relevant to the argument somehow. Since none of yours have
been relevant to the argument, they are all ad hominem.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:cguq51909n27np1qdhqi7e52kuf7mm3blh@4ax.com...
> >Well, yes, the nail has been hit squarely on the head, from my
perspective.
> >But I have to wonder, what is the point of the paladin, if NOT to be the
> >prototypical chivalrous and honorable knight?
>
> Because the prototypical knight you allude to is a work of myth.

We... play... a... fantasy... game...

I certainly hope your argument would not be applied to the existance of
clerics and wizards.

> >Is there some indication that your interpretation is more valid than any
> >other interpretation of the class?
>
> His interpretation allows for the class to actually BE PLAYED, as opposed
> to only being usable by hypothetical perfect humans.

Perhaps, but it also doesn't fit the prototypical mold, the mold upon which
the class was based. It would appear to me that the class is based on
certain figures of historical or literary significance, and those characters
had traits in common, prototypically "paladin-esque" traits.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:3puq51dvklhsv74bhd2q9mf3v9j3q5avul@4ax.com...
> Metagame problem, metagame solution. If the berries are not causing a
> problem in the game, then they do not need to be removed from the game.

In other words, *NO* problem of game balance should ever require removal
from the game. Let's say some enterprising, well intentioned but ultimately
misguided DM made up a character class that was so dramatically out of step
with the rest of the characters that it was causing a problem between the
players. I don't know, let's say d% for hit points per level, hit
advancement twice as fast as a fighter, able to cast spells as a wizard of 5
levels higher than the character and a cleric 3 levels higher, he has
natural uber strength, blah blah, I mean the whole nine yards. The GAME
would not be impacted(except to note that this guy kicks ass at 1st level),
so your solution would NOT be to remove that character class from play?

The situation is the same here. One of the things that is highlighting the
barbarian as an ass kicker and causing inter-player strife is those berries,
so get rid of them somehow, even if it is done from the metagame.

> >Name them. Name the ones that are to be considered "non-hamfisted".
Rage
> >berries that hatch into ragemonsters and wipe out a town? HAMFISTED.
>
> Again, why must the berries hatch into ragemonsters? They could turn into
> Rot Grubs, or be the eggs of Spriggans, or maybe they are the last
> surviving seed pods of a Wolf In Sheep's Clothing.

It doesn't matter WHAT they spring into, the mere fact that the "berries"
are now springing forth monsters of ANY kind is hamfisted. Call them fairy
sprites, call them rot grubs, call them fruit flies if you want, the mere
fact that the berries aren't what they have always been claimed to be(if
this is the route taken) is hamfisted.

> You can hamfist a good idea by making it stupid, like ragemonsters.
> Delicacy makes for a more interesting experience, and better roleplaying.

If the berries bring forth the most nastiest monster ever to walk the earth
or if it's something innocuously stupid, it's *STILL* hamfisted, because
they have ALWAYS been referred to as BERRIES, not EGGS. It's not *WHAT* the
something is that comes out of the berries, it's *THAT* something comes out
of the berries, that makes it hamfisted.

> >You seem to be of the mistaken viewpoint that I think that hamfisted
ideas
> >like what have been presented are automatically unworthy simply because
they
> >are hamfisted.
>
> No, I'm under the correct impression that you don't care whether something
> is hamfisted or not because you aren't a very good DM, and not only are
> incapable of coming up with elegant solutions to problems, but see the
> inelegant ones as being just fine.

You think that by toning down the ferocity of critter that jumps from the
"berries", you've got an elegant solution? Here's a clue, yet again: it's
NOT the stats of what comes out of the berries that makes it hamfisted, it's
simply that something comes out of them, period, end of story.

I think it's a good idea despite that wrinkle, mind you, and it's not
because "I'm a bad DM". If we agree that it's a good idea, and my thinking
it's a good idea makes me a bad DM somehow, what does that say about you?

> If the berries never get used, then they are even less of a problem,
aren't
> they? Do you remove an artifact from the game that the players have not
> encountered and have never heard of because if they ever DO find it, it
> will be a problem?

It's the knowledge that the barbarian has massive backup to his main
ability.

> The cause is that the players are suffering from the green envy monster.
> The berries are the source of the problem, but they are not the cause. If
> this was an in-game problem, then the berries would indeed be the cause.

It's as if you don't recognize that human beings are human beings. Sure,
it's about envy, jealousy and all that, but you're ignoring that such things
will NEVER go away. You're thinking that people won't be human when they
are playing. The metagame problem of envy will not go away simply because
you tell the players to knock it off. The berries are the indirect cause of
the metagame problem, making them a very expeditious way of getting rid of
the problem.

> > What are you going to
> >do to solve the problem from the metagame perspective? Talk to the
players,
> >get them to ignore the fact that the barbarian has a ready supply of
rages
> >on his belt which is contributing to a severe imbalance of power between
the
> >characters?
>
> So suddenly it *IS* an in-game problem? Can't have it both ways, Jeff. If
> the barbarian is too strong because of the berries, then yes, an in-game
> solution is necesary. But that isn't the case. The players are PERCEVING
an
> inbalance where none exists. The problem is not the characters, the
problem
> is the players. Deal with the players, not the characters.

The paragraph above simply highlights the player's perception of the
problem. To the characters in question, I'm sure there's NO problem that
they have a raging barbarian that they can point at any battle and say
"destroy" and he does so.

> > Or are you going to at least get rid of the berries?
>
> If the berries are not causing a problem, then there is no need to remove
> of them. So no, I would not get rid of the berries.

So, what's your solution?

> >However the implementation, the basic story itself is KLUDGY, AWKWARD AND
> >*HAMFISTED*.
>
> Sorry, no.

Denial is an ugly thing.

> > Berries that aren't berries all of a sudden? Nothing to ever
> >indicate they were anything but berries, and all of a sudden they've
hatched
> >into who knows what?
>
> Unknown things that looked like berries. Could be anything, particularly
in
> a D&D universe. Do your players automatically get complete knowledge of
> everything that falls into their possession?

Presumably they had the "berries" identified by someone who would know such
things, otherwise they wouldn't know what they were, right? During that
process, the drawbacks of using them would have been made apparant. They go
see Mr Sage, he says these things look like berries, but they are ACTUALLY
the eggs of some critter that have the effect of rage in humans, one day
they might hatch, look out!

It's hamfisted to simply say "you know those berries, yeah, they weren't
berries". End of story.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> <madafro@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1113425867.650155.250440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Keith Davies wrote:
>
> >> You might look at the book _Talion: Revenant_ by Mike Stackpole.
The
> >> Talion Justices have the ability to draw a person's soul out,
killing
> >> them instantly. Many people consider it a special death touch
> > attack...
> >> the Justices know better.
> >
> > Interesting. Might check that out once I finish up "Kushiel's
Dart."
> > (Jasin recommended it last year; just now getting around to it.)
>
> Either of you care to give a brief review on these? Some spoilers
are okay.
> This group's book recommendations have been solid so far.

I'm not even a quarter of the way through "Kushiel's Dart" yet, so I
couldn't begin to provide a meaningful review. I will say that if you
can get into thickly layered fantasy-intrigue woven with erotic themes,
then this is your cup of tea.

The writing is elegant, but not florid, and while the author includes
sexual intrigue as a strong driver for the plot, it isn't gratuitous.
This is not a sword-and-sorcery bodice ripper, in other words. I have
high hopes.

Jasin Zujovic could probably provide a much more thorough review of
"Dart" and its sequel, if he's inclined. At the time he recommended it
to me, he was using it as inspiration/material for parts of his
campaign IIRC.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> I just re-read the subthread. Goslin was actually correct when in saying
>> that there was "no content to argue," because the start of the subthread
>> was not an argument.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Did you really just type that in public? PATHETIC ....

No, it's the truth. Read it yourself, if you need to. Taking Goslin's
words out of context isn't helping your case any, scumbag.

>>> If you could show that I tried to argue "well, you're lying because
>>> you've lied before", you'd have a leg to stand on.

>> That isn't necessary to show the ad hominem fallacy ....

> <goggle>

Like I said, you should've paid more attention to your soft-skills
classes, you ignoramus. While the ad hominem fallacy does not include
all personal attacks, it /does/ include all attacks that distract from
the argument, even if they do not wholly replace it.

In short, you use a false definition to justify your actions and pretend
they aren't the scumbag tactics that they are. Your rationalizations are
pure sophistry, and not very good sophistry at that. Who do you think
you're fooling?

> The only person being a fool is you, Bradd. Once again, you've ridden
> onto the scene, all full of vim and verve because That MSB is Being
> Mean Again ....

Nah, just pointing out your usual scumbag tactics.

> You might not like it, Braddie boy, but you're going to have to deal
> with it. Stop wasting our time with *bullshit* like your recent
> attempt to substitute an *opinion* about rhetorical techniques ....

In the past, you've admitted to blowing off the soft stuff. I actually
paid attention so that I could learn what's effective and what's not.
Once again, you're out of your league, pretending to be an expert. Gee,
who else does that sound like?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jeff Goslin wrote:
> No. You are 100% wrong. The only way a personal attack ISN'T ad
> hominem is if the attack is relevant to the argument somehow.

While MSB's definition isn't entirely correct, neither is yours. It's
only ad hominem if and only if it's a red herring, i.e., if it distracts
from the argument.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 04:47:06 -0400, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:


>> You can hamfist a good idea by making it stupid, like ragemonsters.
>> Delicacy makes for a more interesting experience, and better roleplaying.
>
>If the berries bring forth the most nastiest monster ever to walk the earth
>or if it's something innocuously stupid, it's *STILL* hamfisted, because
>they have ALWAYS been referred to as BERRIES, not EGGS.

So what? A wide variety of things have been misnamed by people who
didn't know or didn't care what they really were.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5sbts.q73.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> >>> If you could show that I tried to argue "well, you're lying because
> >>> you've lied before", you'd have a leg to stand on.
>
> >> That isn't necessary to show the ad hominem fallacy ....
>
> > <goggle>
>
> Like I said, you should've paid more attention to your soft-skills
> classes, you ignoramus. While the ad hominem fallacy does not include
> all personal attacks, it /does/ include all attacks that distract from
> the argument, even if they do not wholly replace it.

<FALLS ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING>
Sorry, bitch, but fallacies are *flawed reasoning*. Making comments
that might "distract" a jackass with thoughts of how sad and pathetic he is
is not an exercise in fallacy unless they COVER FOR THE ABSENCE of the
argument. You appear to be amateurishly confusing disruptive rhetoric with
logic. "Soft-skills" classes, indeed.
You can stop lying to the newgroup any time now.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:42:54 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> He wanted to play a paladin, which was the first sign of trouble. I have
> *never* run into a player who I thought actually played a paladin well.
> Their alignment restrictions are almost never followed strictly enough,
> meaning that the paladin is little more than a fighter on massive steroids.

A question - how come an AD&D2 paladin is "a fighter on massive
steroids"? They almost certainly have to have their best stat on
Charisma (basically a dump stat), and don't get weapon specialisation.
Until high levels they get a small amount of healing and immunity to
some stuff that is generally either merely a nuisance or a signal the
GM's being an arsehole.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 13 Apr 2005 13:33:40 -0700, "madafro@sbcglobal.net"
<madafro@sbcglobal.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> So the paladin works over a few orc captives? So he kills a wholly evil
> enemy who has surrendered? These things may or may not be suspect, but
> at worst they are ambiguous enough that I wouldn't consider them "gross
> violations," so I need not waste time on them.

I wouldn't either. I'd just make a note of them, and point out to the
player that _continued_ behaviour like that might shift the
character's alignment.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>"madafro@sbcglobal.net" <madafro@sbcglobal.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>> So the paladin works over a few orc captives? So he kills a wholly evil
>> enemy who has surrendered? These things may or may not be suspect, but
>> at worst they are ambiguous enough that I wouldn't consider them "gross
>> violations," so I need not waste time on them.
>
>I wouldn't either. I'd just make a note of them, and point out to the
>player that _continued_ behaviour like that might shift the
>character's alignment.

To what? Lawful Mean? Enough people on here argue that Batman
(as portrayed in [pick your Batman comic book graphic-novel or series])
is Lawful Good, and he certainly does those kinds of things...

Donald

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5sc10.q73.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > No. You are 100% wrong. The only way a personal attack ISN'T ad
> > hominem is if the attack is relevant to the argument somehow.
>
> While MSB's definition isn't entirely correct, neither is yours. It's
> only ad hominem if and only if it's a red herring, i.e., if it distracts
> from the argument.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
That's the definition I've been finding mirrored most places, more or less.

There is nothing in that definition(which is fundamentally mirrored in many
places) that states anything about the "red herring" nature that you allude
to.

What IS specifically stated is that it's not fallacious if it goes to the
credibility of the argument, which is something that has never been
presented by MSB. My own stupidity, foolishness or naivete, or lack
thereof(depending on his particularly attack) is irrelevant to his proving
of his argument(when he makes one).

While "ad hominem" is often used by blowhards to display some understanding
of logic, it's overuse does NOT mean that what is being said is NOT an ad
hominem attack. It's simply an indicator of just how often it truly does
happen.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:


> Eep, "Ryk E. Spoor" is Sea Wasp's real name? And I thought I got
teased a
> lot as a kid for my name...

I'm there with you. It was a great way to weed out telemarketers in the
pre-Caller ID days, anyway.

"Hi, I'd like to speak to Mister, uh, Noom?"

"Nobody here by that name." <click>

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro