|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
One flaw with your idea:
The bigger the numbers get, the smaller the impact of a given gap size will be.
That is, the difference between 14 and 16 STR and the difference between 32 and 34 STR are the same gap in an absolute sense, but the gap is proportionally smaller in the second case than in the first. There's less impact.
This difference is even more clear in your "+1 level" analogy. The difference between 1st and 2nd level is waaaaay bigger than the difference between, say, 18th and 19th level. The character advancing from 1st to 2nd will very nearly double their HP (which is a HUGE boost to survivability at that level), whereas the HP increase from 18th to 19th will be a mere drop in the bucket. Same goes for BAB, saves, skills, etc. Moving a bonus from +4 to +5 is a 25% increase, while moving from +32 to +33 is only a 3% increase.
Generous stats are a huge boon at low levels, but their significance wanes rapidly as you advance in level (at least, in Pathfinder). Thus, many GMs overestimate the ability of high starting stats to wreck entire campaigns.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Does anybody have any examples from their games of a cleric getting "out of hand"? I think it'd be interesting, and it might make more sense to me.
Depends on where your bar for "out of hand" is, but I played a cleric to almost 12th level in PFS a couple years back. In combat, Plan A was to fight very nearly as well as a fighter in melee, but unlike a fighter, he actually had options for Plan B. And out of combat (or in combats that had some kind of twist to them), he had all kinds of ways to engage.
In Pathfinder, your AC is about gear, not class, so I could buy all the same armor as a fighter. Plus, since I could cast greater magic weapon on my non-masterwork longsword, I actually had more wealth available to spend on defensive gear than most fighters would. As a result, I typically had the highest AC at the table. Offensively, by the time his lesser BAB started to "show" and I needed to be buffing for combat, I was at the level where lots of foes have multiple attacks, so you don't want to be moving forward and attacking on round 1 anyway (since that lets them full-attack you). Instead, I'd cast a single buff spell (which is all it takes) and move just far enough forward to get the baddies' attention. Then they move up and attack, and I return with a full-attack at full power. I was always one of the top melee combatants at the table.
Of course, there are some enemies where nobody can really go toe-to-toe with them. The fighter's option here is to just try and dump as much damage into it as possible before dropping, and hope the rest of the party can finish it off and then resuscitate him. But clerics have options. Big brutes like that tend to have low Will saves, so I'd pack a couple of plane shifts. When round 1 opened with a colossal titan centipede trampling the entire party to half HP or less, everyone else scrambled to try and come up with a plan (and started discussing resurrection options) while I just walked up and sent the encounter to hell. Poof. Did the same to an undead mammoth in another scenario, and again to a CON-draining ooze in another. Because honestly, 95% of enemies tend to come in two types: those you can go toe-to-toe with, and those who fold to plane shift.
So, combat is basically covered, and the only spells that are spoken for so far are a few 1st-level slots (divine favor), a couple 5th-level slots (plane shift) and a 4th-level slot (greater magic weapon). So I'm already leaving martials in the dust and I've still got the vast majority of my spell slots available. Since I didn't need them for basic functioning, I could fill them with situationally-ridiculous spells (like the time my GM boggled at learning I had stone shape prepared, after an enemy had wall of stone'd a party member into a cave alone with a harpy). I could also leave a few slots open for condition removal, etc. Give me a day to prepare and I can even raise the dead, or ask God what's up and expect a meaningful answer.
And that's before we even get to my Knowledge skills, my domain power to add my level to social skills, my domain power to auto-dispel all magical darkness, my domain power to get heroism as a swift action for the whole team, and so forth.
And ironically, people sometimes b*&*#ed that I wasn't standing in the back, ready to heal their fighter.
You might want to re-read the story. The cleric didn't die, he walked past his injured allies to a thrice-dead fighter and cast a cure spell on the corpse.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Well, look at some of your comments so far, talking as though you're shocked that people would so readily accept becoming a "horrible undead monster" and offering reminders to the effect of "but you're still dead!" and so forth.
So clearly there's something which, in your mind, is inherently part of being undead and is presumably objectionable in some way, to such a degree as to be worth commenting on when somebody's okay with it.
But the things that immediately come to mind when speaking of "undeath" are things like a skeletal visage, various forms of evilness (like eating the living or whatever), and no longer really being yourself.
But you took all that away, so unless you're having trouble keeping track of your own proposition, those aren't the things you're reacting to.
So let me frame my question this way: what are all the aspects of undeath that you're surprised to see people so readily accept?
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Okay, so I'm normal-looking, still myself, and I'm up and walking around, but "this doesn't change the fact that you're dead". You now need to define "dead", because you've just removed most of what it actually means.
Really? That's why? I've got my own list of reasons, but I must say that the above is not on the list.
But that's the thing: the wizard won't have such low DEX/CON compared to the martial of the same point buy.
15pt Human Wizard:
15pt Human Fighter:
See how they've got the same CON? Plus, since the wizard has more skill points, it's easier for him to put his FCB into HP. And since he's less reliant on feat trees to be effective (EDIT: God forbid the 15pt fighter needs 13 INT for Combat Expertise.), he can more easily spare his human bonus feat on Toughness.
So the human fighter has 12-13 HP (depending on FCB), while the human wizard can easily have 12 HP. The fighter gains 8-9 HP/level, and the wizard gains 8 HP/level. So already, the wizard is virtually (or perhaps even literally) on par with the fighter for HP.
But wait, there's more! The wizard has item crafting as a built-in class feature, so he can get his CON belt at half price (and on-demand). And since he's not trying to split that magic item slot with STR like the fighter is, the price gap just gets bigger and bigger. So the wizard's CON is going to jump sooner and faster than the fighter's. You can mitigate the crafting disparity if they're in the same party together, but there's still the whole "the wizard's +4 CON belt is a lot cheaper than the fighter's +4 STR/CON belt" issue.
So, a Pathfinder wizard starts with HP similar to a fighter, and easily catches up or even passes him as levels rise.
Pathfinder is not a system that supports the "squishy wizard" trope. Sorry.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Yes, NPCs with PC classes get heroic stat array (15,14,13,12,10,08). NPCs with NPC classes get the basic stat array (13,12,11,10,09,08).
Which, when you think about the non-human races' ability to have functional societies despite putting racial penalties on top of those arrays, tells you interesting things about what "dump stats" translate to in-world.
It didn't happen in 2nd but it's being framed retroactively like it did to fit the narrative.
Your use of unspecified pronouns makes this sentence really hard to parse. Can you be more explicit as to what you're trying to communicate here?
Again, compared to Pathfinder, declared initiative rounds with weapon/action speeds and lost actions go x10 faster than my PF games with all the round-to-round ticking off of buff/debuff +1/-1 nonsense. I've tested combats and adventure completion between AD&D and PF, AD&D wins hands down every time.
I think it's pretty close to universally agreed that 3.X is basically the slowest combat system ever, so I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with here.
Unless maybe you're trying to attribute the difference to the different initiative systems? That would seem kinda silly, and I don't think you're trying to say that, but I'm not sure what other point you could be making here. Can you elaborate?
I think you mean "and THEN". ;)
Anyway, it's an interesting idea, but I think it's based on an easy-to-make but nevertheless false assumption: that "random"/"unpredictable" is inherently more lifelike or believable.
There are some cases where it makes sense. I mean, all those elven archers at the top of Helm's Deep are firing at the same time with no communication about their targets. Isn't it likely that there's going to be at least a little bit of target-selection overlap, and somebody's arrow is going to be headed for an already-dead uruk-hai? It's easy to imagine things like this (I actually had this thought while watching this and other movies) and then picture this "blind initiative" system as delivering on this hectic experience of bloody mayhem. Cool, right?
Yeah, until you consider all the other scenarios it also enables. For example, the fighter is badly injured, so the cleric declares his intent to move up and cast a cure spell on him. Meanwhile, the enemy archers all target the fighter (figuring on some of them missing due to the fighter's high AC) and the enemy mage tosses a fireball in hopes of finishing him off while damaging the rest of the PCs in the process.
Then the cleric rolls the lowest initiative, and you get this scenario:
That's ridiculous. It's nonsensical. It's so dumb that it's even more immersion-shatteringly "meta" than the modern initiative system you moved away from. And it's mind-bogglingly different from what you were going for.
So what do you do, then? Maybe safeguard against situations like the above with a list of exceptions? Like, maybe if there are enough initiative counts between a plan-altering event (like the fighter dying) and your own turn, you can change? Or maybe actions like archery are deemed easy enough to adjust that those archers can change targets when the fighter dies to the fireball? Or if your turn involves movement and a touch spell, you're still committed to those actions but can change what target you move toward? Maybe all of the above?
Okay, so now you've gone from the original blind initiative idea to a whole subsystem with its own list of special rules and exceptions, and each one of those special rules brings the net result one step closer to the modern initiative system you were moving away from in the first place.
Meanwhile, if you're anywhere between the two extremes of these different initiative systems, people would just play toward the best options. That is, if archery gets to change targets easily, then everybody wants to be an archer. If something else gets an exception, folks play to that. Whatever's worst off doesn't get used (for instance, folks might just decide to never heal each other in battle for fear of the above scenario, and push even harder toward "rocket tag", which is probably not what you're after either).
Of course, you could then take the most forgiving actions initiative-wise and give them other drawbacks (like maybe archery deals less damage, etc) in an attempt to rebalance things so that there's real diversity and choice again, so you can have your complicated-but-dynamic initiative system without breaking anything. Great, except now you're rewriting so much of the game in your attempt to create a workable context in which your initiative system can function, that you may as well be playing a different game.
You know, like 2E. Side note: Just because a mechanic "worked just fine" in one game doesn't mean it'll work just as well in another. Classic homebrewer pitfall. The context in which a mechanic will operate is as important as—if not moreso than—the mechanic itself.
TLDR: The idea sounds neat, but won't deliver the experience you think it will.
You're not really in a position to throw stones here, since you're pretending that a single character is equivalent to a 4-5 person party of the same level for determining the intended lethality of a given CR. That's pretty dishonest of you, and you should stop it.
"I always think everything could be a trap. Which is why I'm still alive."— Prince Humperdinck
You're welcome to ignore elements of the game in order to play it more smoothly. This does not mean that the folks who understand how the published system actually works are being ridiculous. The ridiculousness is in the system, not the reader.
The nasty taste comes from the cake that was made with salt in place of sugar, not from the person who tasted the saltiness and correctly diagnosed how it got that way. And the person who hears that diagnosis and replies, "Come on, you know cake is supposed to be sweet; stop getting hung up on the petty details of the ingredients and just enjoy it!" is being pretty silly.
Also, don't confuse comprehension with support. Recognizing the nasty taste of salt-cake and being able to point out what happened is not the same as saying you prefer your cake to be salty. Similarly, recognizing how Pathfinder's skill mechanics work and what repercussions they have is not the same as being in favor of gaming that way. Neither of us is playing by-the-book Pathfinder: you've chosen things to ignore, and I've switched systems.
Not necessary. Pathfinder assumes most folks (including adventurers; that is, folks with PC class levels) have an assortment of stats that include a single-digit number—possibly even two, or one that's as low as a 6, depending on race. If we assume random distribution, a good number of the population of Golarion has a WIS of less than 10. Among them, those who don't have any ranks in Perception are fully capable of failing this check.
When Bob the 8 WIS merchant opens his bedroom door to reveal that his wife is lying hopefully in bed 10ft away (+1 to the DC), there's a 10% chance he won't even notice her.
Don't dump WIS, folks. At least not in Pathfinder.
The Green Tea Gamer wrote:
Really? I thought the forum had a separate "memory" for any given thread.
It's a lot of work to cheat, but it is possible. I don't know why you'd cheat in an RPG - you don't get a prize for winning or anything, but...some people are that type.
I find it usually has to do with getting the gameplay to match your expectations. The most classic example is when the fight is supposed to be difficult and scary but the game is telling you it's much easier than anticipated, so the GM cheats the rolls (or inflates the HP, or whatever) in order to get things to play out the way they envisioned. On the player side, it might be something like wanting to execute a cool, cinematic turn that starts with a chandelier swing which—if the Acrobatics check fails—instead results in you faceplanting and accomplishing nothing, in a manner completely at odds with how you envisioned the scene going and bruises your super-cool mental image of your character.
Basically, I think the cheating comes in when people forget that there are differences between RPGs and other storytelling mediums, and they sometimes feel like they're authors and the dice are coming into their workshops and rewriting their lovingly-crafted manuscripts against their will.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Remember that we're talking about a system where there's an explicitly listed Perception DC for noticing that somebody's standing next to you and for hearing what they're saying to you.
Hm, you might be a good fit for my next campaign. One of my campaigns is likely to wrap up this summer (they're on the last dungeon before the final showdown, and making good progress). Once that happens, I will very likely start up another one.
I will confess being guilty of one of your annoyances, though: I do leave recruitment open for more than a week. Just because someone can consistently come up with a few minutes with access to the site every day to post, doesn't mean they can come up with four hours of character creation at home with their books within a couple of days of seeing a recruitment thread. Thus, I like my recruitments to include two weekends.
But if you can deal with that, keep an eye out for my next game.
Interesting! I've entertained similar thought experiments in the past, but yours is all articulate and formulated, so I'll take yours and poke it and see what happens.
You mentioned housing and medical care; what about food?
Also, what's the plan when more than 10% of the city's population wants to live in this free dorm?
@LazGrizzle — How do you know that the players/GMs you've had trouble with are "today's millennials" rather than your fellow 35-year-olds in their underwear with a micro-brewed beer and a joint (or any other demographic for that matter, such as overweight retirees with 30+ years of
Makes sense if the brute force solution was to break a hole in the chest with a greataxe and the treasure gets smashed in the process.
Though in the context of the OP, where the "brute force solution" is to break the lock with an adamantine dagger, the destruction of all the treasure within mostly just tells us some unfortunate things about the kind of person the GM is.
Terquem, why would anyone ask you questions about the environment when your initial descriptions are so wonderfully detailed in the first place?
I think your observation of less question-asking might have less to do with computer games and disinterest in the setting, and more to do with no longer needing to assume that the GM is hoping for a lethal "Gotcha!" if you fail to explicitly ask whether the statue is in the process of stabbing you.
Yes, everyone, I understand the character will not be contributing much in the damage department. His party contributions will revolve around skill support, scouting, social strength, and aiding during combat (with combat reflexes/bodyguard, he'll regularly be throwing out +5 untyped bonuses to attack rolls/AC thanks to good traits). No, he won't be putting out much damage, but I've already accepted he'll be a support character that will be strong in social/trapfinding situations.
I think you're using the wrong game system for your concept, and unless the GM does a lot of tweaking and/or the other PCs force weaknesses into themselves specifically to leave room for you, you're going to eventually run into problems.
It's not about your damage output. It's about how the whole game is set up.
For example, a character's AC is built almost entirely on magic items. Even if you decide to invest in extra armor proficiencies (or use thing nonproficiently) and wear full plate and a tower shield, the highest AC you can ever get without magic items will be 26 (and even that is assuming a couple more feats).
That means you're only into mid levels when monsters start consistently hitting you with single-digit rolls. By the low teen levels, even monsters' secondary attacks are going to be hitting you a lot. Thus, you're going to be taking more damage than normal. On top of that, you're not going to have the CON belt (and other stat boosts later on) that the monsters' damage output is assuming you've got, so you can't even take as many hits. By mid levels, a single pouncing animal is going to down you in a single round, and it's only going to get worse from there.
And then there's your saves. Without a cloak of resistance, stat boosters, etc; you're gradually going to need higher and higher rolls to make your saves, and the effects of failure are going to get more and more dramatic.
So as levels rise, more and more you'll find that you're neutralized in the first round. Then nobody gets those untyped assistance bonuses you were hoping to contribute, because you're not around to provide them.
Out of combat, you were hoping to be good at social skills and other such things? Not without magic. Skill DCs tend to scale faster than the +1 per level that ranks give you, because it's assumed that you're boosting relevant stats and accumulating magic bonuses. Your success rate is going to continue to drop over the course of the game.
I'm sorry, I like your concept, but Pathfinder is a system that's built on omnipresent magic and punishes concepts like this past the first few levels. Making it work will require lots of bending over backwards from everyone else at the table, both players and GMs. You need to ask them if they're okay with it.
Are we talking about actually roleplaying, or are we talking about "speaking in first-person"? Despite common overlap, those are two different things; unfortunately, a lot of folks conflate the two.
Roleplaying is when your character's interaction with the game world is based on the character's knowledge and personality rather than that of the player. You might act this out in first-person speech, or you might describe it instead. In some cases, roleplaying requires that you not even have your character speak at all (whether portrayed in first person or not).
There's a similar distinction between roleplaying and the backstories and flaws and such. When you remember that roleplaying just means that your interactions with the world are true to character, it becomes clear that things which aren't part of your interactions with the world are not roleplaying. Thus, writing a backstory is not roleplaying. Writing a backstory is a roleplaying aid – it gives you information about your character so that when you ARE roleplaying, it will be easier and/or more fun to do so.
With all that understood, let's go back to the idea of "enforcing roleplay". This actually means "enforcing that PCs' interactions with the world are true to character". This sounds like it's obviously something worth doing, but it's not so simple. For example, just today I started as a player in a new PbP campaign, and the opening adventure hook involved the PCs being part of a larger group (more NPCs than PCs) who noticed signs of trouble in the distance. When my character expressed an interest in having some of the people investigate while others guarded the civilians, that was roleplaying (due to character motivations I won't go into here). But when the specific people I requested go with me to investigate just happened to be the PCs (while armed and capable NPCs stayed behind), that was not roleplaying, even though it involved first-person speech. In fact, it was blatant metagaming. But it was good for the game.
So do I enforce roleplaying? Only where appropriate. :)
Yeah, I know. That's part of the multi-faceted reason I gave up on Pathfinder: there seems to be quite a disconnect between what the game is billed as doing, how the game actually works, and how the adventure writers (and PFS leadership, and the GMing community, etc) seem to think the game is structured.
The way Pathfinder is structured as a system, by the time the party can afford to have 3,000gp tied up in an adamantine dagger, the sentence "it's locked" is no longer supposed to represent a meaningful obstacle.
Pathfinder is a game where leveling up* means that your previous types of challenges become trivial and you move on to what would have been impossible a few levels ago but now presents about the same amount of challenge that the now-trivial obstacles of the past used to present.
*And in Pathfinder, "leveling up" includes the accumulation of fantastic gear and magic items, as that's a built-in mechanism of character advancement.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ Jiggy: The success stories of Final Fantasy and other similar JRPG genres would like to have a word with you; they're still alive and kicking, and quite virulently, too. I don't like such games, but clearly it's appreciated a lot more than you care to admit.
You seem to be under the impression that I said something very different than what I actually wrote. Feel free to re-read and try again. Or not. Your call.
The rules don't say you can make it into a weapon, so you can't. They do tell you what happens if you put one into the other, but there aren't rules explaining how to attach it to an arrow or anything else so it simply isn't possible.
This is how roleplay dies: you can only interact with the world according to a prescribed list of actions from a pre-written menu. No getting immersed in the world and thinking about how you could interact with your environment, just picking a command from the action menu.
If memory serves, I believe the colors of MtG were very intentionally supposed to not map to good or evil, with any color capable of producing heroes and villains.
White is about order and community. At its best, it protects its own and provides security and reliability to its populations. At its worst, it's an oppressive bureaucracy that stifles individual freedoms.
Blue is about knowledge, precision, and control. At its best, it provides the tools to understand the world and keeps the chaos of life from getting out of hand and hurting people. At its worst, it pursues dangerous secrets at high cost and manipulates others into serving its own interests.
Black is about ambition and personal advancement without the fetters of pointless taboos. At its best, it's getting the job done and taking care of business. At its worst, it's making dangerous deals and using paths that are taboo for a good reason.
Red is about impulse, free expression, and passion. At its best, it's swift and decisive and energetic. At its worst, it's reckless, short-sighted (often sacrificing long-term resources for more immediate gains) and destructive.
Green is about nature, harmony, and life. At its best, it nurtures and heals and provides bounty and strength where needed. At its worst, it's wild and dangerous, trampling whoever is weaker in the name of the natural order.
In any case it is better to not do anything unless/until you start seeing problems. There are groups out there that never see martial/caster disparity for whatever reason, it maybe will not even be a problem for you either.
Indeed, understanding the C/MD is only relevant to help with diagnosing an issue once you've already noticed a lack of fun that needs to be addressed. If you never reach that point, then it doesn't matter how much C/MD there is in your game, and you don't need to modify anything.
Your preferences are not necessarily the design parameters of the system.
An encounter of a given CR is supposed to drain about 25% of the daily resources of a party of the same level. So in your example of a CR 15 encounter and a 15th-level party, Pathfinder is NOT designed for a 50-50 shot at a TPK. The party is supposed to defeat that encounter and still have 75% of their daily resources remaining. Pathfinder is designed with the intent that they can handle four of those encounters each and every day before they're all tapped out and have to stop.
Now, if you want a deadlier game, that's fine, and reducing the availability of magic items is one way to achieve that. I just ask that you don't paint your preferred variant as being the baseline assumptions of the system, because when random people show up and start talking about "how Pathfinder works", they're not talking about your preferred variant and you shouldn't respond to their ideas as though they were.
Thanks, but that looks like "full wizard with a minimum level of fighting tacked on" - kind of the reverse of the Eldritch Knight's "full fighter with a minimum level of spellcasting tacked on". I'm going for something closer to an even split. Also, for this character, I'm not too keen on the performance/dance theme.
Essentially when I say "It's mostly middle aged white guys", what I'm also implying is "It's mostly middle aged white guys, and if you generally feel uncomfortable around that group because of your experience with them (especially in gaming spaces) then I want you to know up front what you're getting into..."
But isn't this basically the definition of racism (or other "isms")? I mean, what would be your reaction to a statement identical to what I'm quoting here, but with "middle aged white guys" replaced with "urban black men" or "millennial trans folk" or basically any other group? Sure, your shorthand comes from valid personal experience, but does that make it okay? If we changed out the group, would a similar set of experiences on the part of the speaker make you feel any better about the statement?
Now, granted, not every group is in equal need of guardianship against racism and such. Please understand that's not my point. My point is that this just happened to end up being a perfect example of the dangers of categorical labels: they make it unbelievably easy for even the best-intentioned person to slip into racist (etc) patterns without even realizing it. (Heck, I've already caught myself like three different times just in writing this post!) Doesn't that mean it's worth the effort to break habits by avoiding these types of labels whenever possible?
Something that bothers me, as a gamer, is that my local PFS scene is mostly middle aged white guys. I've been witness to sexist and racist language...
So, which thing is the offensive part: the sexist and racist language, or the large number of middle-aged white guys?
Whenever I talk to my friends, I'll occasionally tell them about PFS, but I also mention that it's mostly older white guys.
Why are you mentioning the age and race but not the sexist and racist behavior? Isn't the latter more likely to be something your friends would want to know about?
If I just described them as "you know, they're all just people!"
To be clear, I never suggested such a thing.
then that does a disservice to my friends who aren't white guys who maybe want to avoid what is going to be an uncomfortable space for them.
Again, what is it that's going to be an uncomfortable space for them: a place with lots of white guys, or a place with lots of prejudiced speech? Wouldn't the best way to avoid doing your friends a disservice be to mention the part that's actually problematic?
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Thread's moving faster than I can really keep up with, but I wanted to go back to this one.
IHIYC, how in the world did you manage to interpret my post like that?
I wrote that a person can't reach a point where one's own assertions/beliefs no longer need to be subject to review/proving/scrutiny/whatever.
Somehow, you interpreted this statement as meaning that I'm in favor of constant testing of one's every thought, day in and day out.
Normally when someone responds to such a straightforward statement with a reply as unfoundedly extreme as yours, it's taken as deliberate hyperbole used in an effort to turn the original statement into something more easily refuted so that they don't have to face an inconvenient observation.
But since you've been so big on how honest you are and how you always "fight fair", I guess we have to rule out hyperbole and conclude that you honestly believed that "you never reach a point where your ideas are beyond contestation" somehow meant "you must test your every thought constantly, even to the neglect of other life activities". If you were honest about being honest, then we have to conclude that your interpretation was genuine, despite its gross wrongness.
So, you've understood my statement to mean something vastly different than what I said. Why could this be? Well, according to you (earlier in this thread), it is fully the responsibility of the listener to make sure they understand the speaker's ideas. Since you have not understood the speaker's message, you have failed in the very responsibility you had proclaimed to the rest of us.
If you've been honest this whole time, then you have a self-elected responsibility to go back to my post and figure out where you went wrong and what I really meant.
Do you intend to do so? Or would you like me to explain it further, in spite of the values you've proclaimed thus far?
YoU kNoW wHaT's GoInG oN, dOn'T yOu?
YoU jUsT wAnTeD tO sEe Me SuFfEr.
I can list simple facts too:(1) Fact 1: In the last 4+ years, I've run well over a hundred players (as a GM) and played with a similar (and overlapping) number as a player through dozens upon dozens of scenarios. (Some scenarios I even got to experience from both sides of the screen at different times, which adds quite a bit of perspective.)
(2) Fact 2: In that particular experience, there is a strong correlation between "problem participants" (players/GMs who tromped across other people's fun to enforce their own ideals) and "number of decades of D&D experience/number of editions played".
So while I would reject the assertion that "multiple decades/editions" = "bad", if I were to say that "multiple decades/editions" is a strong indicator that the player/GM in question is choosing to trample other people's fun in order to enforce their own ideals, would you accept that conclusion as being just as valid as your own? Because if not, you're being hypocritical and need to reassess your position.