Solo's page

I would like to introduce Legend, a rules-lite and versatile RPG that aims to provide cinematic combat and a deep storytelling experience. The Legend RPG was developed based on the Wizards of the Coast D20 SRD and the houserules of the Giant in the Playground's Test of Spite Arena. It is our hope that the Paizo messageboards will enjoy this take on the d20 system.

We don't have sigs here though. I guess we could track them in our profiles.

Seriously? I'm probably one of the bigger a-holes on these boards here, if you want to use that as a measuring stick.

Nah, volunteers are notorious for producing biased results. I'd have to go through the roster of active posters and randomly select thirty of them.

This is sounding a lot like the "debate club wannabe"'s that I posted about and heard a rash of crap for. Please stop proving my point. People might dislike me more.

I don't think that the man who has been "debating" people for the past seven pages should be calling others debate club wannabes.

Seeing as how I was part of the debate club, I don't think I actually qualify as a wannabe anyways.

Seriously, though, of all the things I said... you choose to pick on the most constructive and useful one?

Odd.

If nothing else comes out of this, I suggest we all inventory our own Jerk Points in our signatures, for maximum lulz. I think a statistical analysis of ChOp v. Paizo would be hilarious but impossible to found on any quantitative grounds as how would you aggregate the data into measurable categories? :) Still, it'd be funny enough to make it worth doing at least a joke-instance of.

Do not doubt the power of statistical analysis, unbeliever!

You know, that actually sounds like fun. How about we do it? Use the powers of statistical analysis to determine whether people from Charop are more or less jerky than people here?

I will do statistical analysis on Charop, and one of you who has training in statistics will help me to ensure that I do not falsify data. We will repeat on Paizo.

This will have to be a double blind study, so as to ensure prejudice and favoritism do not affect us. Experimenter bias is, after all, a bad thing.

So basically we shall do take a stratified random sample of 30 members of Charop and 30 members of Paizo, select quotes from them at random via the SRS method, ten to thirty each - we'll determine the exact number later.

These quotes will be given to the two experimenters and the jerkness content will be assessed. I propose that one jerky post be given one Jerk Point, a semi-jerky one be given half, a neutral post be given zero, and a helpful post be given negative one point. Something like that.

After doing this, we run the data through a T test, and will determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the jerkness of Charop people and the posters on this forum.

I am offering to take this to the limit max extreme, by bringing actual data into this discussion instead of pure theory and rhetoric, which has basically boiled down to both sides saying "nuh-uh" at each other.

Is anyone up to the challenge?

Solo, um, chill. Seriously. Comparing some pejorative labels for a gaming style with racism is immature, silly and not going to win hearts and minds.

The driving force behind calling any group a pejorative label is roughly the same.

I dislike it. I am against it - and you are as well, I would imagine?

It is the principal of the thing. I will not stand for racism against other races. I will also not stand for similar displays of prejudice against others, whether they be gamers, physics students, or plumbers.

If that's the posting style we can expect from you, you're basically proving your detractors' points.

It doesn't work like that. Statistically, n has to be greater than or equal to thirty for your sample size to be statistically significant.

You'd have to take an simple random sample of 30 people from 3.5 Charop, objectively assess their jerkness, run the results through a T test, and then report to us what level of jerkness the Charop people have.

Then do the same to people here on Paizo and see if the amount of jerkness on Charop is greater than, less than, or equal to the amount you find here.

Unless you meant people who were saying that I, personally, am a jerk.

I'm willing to be it was this:

Solo wrote:

What a coincidence. Back in the old days, we also had a different name for African Americans.

Nice comparison. :S

Both are basically prejudicial slurs use to denigrate those of a certain type that you do not like, aren't they?

Solo, if you want to post something constructive, go ahead. That isn't it. Why don't you start a CharOp thread and talk about what you supposedly want to talk about, instead of raising the termperature here?

So, of all the people posting nonconstructive things, you have chosen to single me out for a reprimand. Interesting.

Anyways, I find what I posted very constructive. Pointing out where other people get it wrong is generally a useful thing if you think about it.

I think back in the 4d6 drop the lowest days we also had a different name for people who obsessed about Character Optimization, I think we called them munchkins.

What a coincidence. Back in the old days, we also had a different name for African Americans.

1: "Bugs" aren't a problem

Exploiting a loophole found in text is just well...pathetic really, D'n'D isn't some competition for money or glory like a sports game or anything like that, it's just a game for fun, nothing is gained by "winning".
Besides, some of the bugs are just plain stupid. Has anyone here heard of the "Two Pole" "bug"? Apparently taking a ladder, getting rid of the rings and turning the two sides into poles is a "bug" because the ladder is cheaper than two poles. Lets nevermind that these poles are wooden with several deep indents, they should still be worth the same amount as a metal 10ft pole apparently.

But what about the bug where a Feather Token of a Tree can be used to produce enough ten foot poles to pay for the cost of the token many, many times over?

DnD isn't about winning, but that doesn't mean there should be bugs. All software and hardware developers test extensively to ensure their products don't have problems. Pretty much the only producers who do not test to ensure the quality of their product are drug dealers.

People should never try to exploit bugs, but bugs should also not exist.

Also, the ten foot pole in DnD is wooden by default. The metal version costs more.

2: Optimization can be just plain silly

Just look at Pun-Pun, one of the first things the origonal writer wrote was "This was never intended to be played, just a thought exercise". Translation - He was aware that it would just be plain ridiculous to actually play a PC like that. A surprisingly large number of these high powered builds are the same. Generally any ones which are played will have some huge weakness to compensate.

You know what else is silly? Playing a fantasy role playing game.

Also, check out this guide to sorcerers: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=18692164

I want to know what about the optimization advice found therein you find diagreeable.

3: Just because you can prove it doesn't mean others will listen

Think you can prove/disprove the "casters are overpowering" myth? Don't bother, even if you could, very few will actually take your findings to be accurate enough to apply. Despite thinking Psionics are far more balanced than core casters, I still find, and will probably continue to find, plenty to disagree, and they'll likely still disagree even if I can find a way to "prove" them wrong.

Think you can prove that all races are equal? Doesn't matter, few people will take your findings seriously.

4: Even if you can prove somthing, you won't always correct the problem

If I was able to prove, via characterOp forums, that casting a particular non-core spell was overpowering, others reading might not nessicerily think "Thats spell overpowering", they might instead think "Wow, all non-core spells are overpowering" (Despite that the majority of the most overpowering content is actually core).
So basically, because it might not succeed, people shouldn't even try. Wow.
Great attitude you have there.

I think it is a little rich to spring up here, relatively new and with little posting history, and start demanding a forum just for your interests

"Qui audet adipiscitur"

Latin for "Who Dares Wins". The motto of Her Majesty's Special Air Service.

I mean, I can see a lot of different viewpoints but I'm not sure a sub-forum eventually would hurt anyone. It's just a long way off, from what I gather. Which certainly makes me sad, but.... such is the way and the nature of things.

Today, Doc Roc leans that a dream deferred is a dream denied.

I TWF unpleasant truths and I still felt that one in my gut. :)

Apologies for the friendly fire. I must have shot you with my +3 Crossbow of Truthiness.

I've only skimmed this thread, but has it discussed any character optimization at all? Just curious, 'cause I haven't seen any.

Well, it's more of a thread devoted to whether or not there should be a forum for it.

The "flag" function is what you are looking for. But it is maybe worth noting that participating in a flame war won't exactly endear this subject to management, and nor will slagging off the Paizo community.

If someone else say something banworthy without my provocation, how does the credit for the banning fall upon my shoulders?

And given that you have got personally offended at a comment that was not specifically aimed at you but instead at a type of poster, maybe making generalisations about the rest of us is slightly hypocritical?

Sarcasm was directed at False Healer. It was not meant to be taken seriously.

Also, Doc Roc is a friend. Have I a right to be offended when someone insults a friend of mine?

Perhaps my first opinion of you was flawed (the mature and respectful parts) but I hope it is just that you perhaps missed some words in my posts or misconstrued my language in some way.
Also I haven't talked down to you, I've tried to explain my thoughts on a matter where I was asked for my thoughts.
Now I actually will talk down to you. Sorry if my disagreeing with your opinion makes you not like me as a person. I am sure I will lose sleep over it.

Forgive me, I'm new here, but does that constitute flaming, and if so, how do I report you for it?

Again, apologies, but I am unused to your Paizo community of gentleness and non-aggression which optimizers threaten to ruin.

Add to that the fact the monk's unarmed damage grows as he gets bigger, and you have something people may call 'broke'.

Are melee characters not supposed to have damage that increases as they gain higher levels?

Needless to say, there are still some bad feelings because that was an unpleasant time on the boards. Don't be surprised if you find posters unwilling to actively invite that particular subculture back.

Unless you parade around stark naked wearing a sandwichboard saying "ALL JERKS WELCOME TO COME AND POST", you aren't really actively inviting that particular subculture back.

So you are saying that you are born a pwr gamer, just like a African-American or Native American(like my self) or maybee its a belief system, you worship some great pwr gamer or gamers in the sky?

Is there a problem?

If I may may a comparison to racial prejudice, studies have shown that education and exposure to other races is the best way of reducing prejudice.

That's why all our schools, colleges, and workplaces are holding diversity training. (That and fear of lawsuits, at any rate.)

As stupid, corny, and lame as they often are, the basic principal is sound: the more you learn about different people, the more you interact with them, the less stereotypes you hold and the better you can get along.

If there is a divide, it is because people lack exposure to each other, not because they have too much exposure.

When did I make a illusions towards real life? If you want to play a combat monster with no personality, more power to you(not to say a person in the navy seals have no personality god knows I voted for one for GOV)just not in my game.

But playing an effective warrior does not mean you have no personality. This is a false dichotomy. SEALs, as you yourself have said, have plenty of personality, as did, I am sure, Ghengis Khan, Attila the Hun, and Miyamoto Musashi.

Where did you get "combat monster with no personality" from? I am confused, please explain. I mean, you yourself said that it is not true in real life. If one were to play a realistic character, one could play a fierce warrior with plenty of roleplaying as well as rollplaying to back it up and there would be no problem, would there?

Nothing to say about the Navy SEALs, Maloo?

Your right I should talk about intent. The character had no real reason to take a lvl of Barbarian, other than for the move bonus and the rage ability.

Someone should tell the Navy SEALs that they are nothing more than a bunch of powergaming munchkins who are far too concerned about powergaming and efficiency for efficiency's sake. I mean, headshotting Somali pirates on a life raft from a ship three hundred meters away? Brokenly overpowered if you ask me. I mean, what kind of cheesy prestige class is this "Navy SEAL" thing anyways? Why couldn't they just roleplay the situation instead of rollplaying?

Listen up, you young whippersnapper: people who are in the business of doing mindboggling dangerous things for a living will try to be as powerful as possible. It is the way of things. To think that they will do less is illogical.

I looked. I didn't see any. Can you provide a link to threads on this site where some innocent CharOps advocates were beaten silly and kicked to the curb? I'm not seeing them either.

I was asking for people to find troublesome optimizers who were jerks and bring about the end of the forums as we know it.

Solo wrote:

So you're saying that if we had a optimization subforum, it would destroy the message boards?

Bit of a hyperbole, don't you think?

Not really. We have a couple of Charop advocates here now who seem to be respectful and mature. In my experience, mostly at WOTC's site in the past, there are some who are just like this group, respectful, mature, etc.. but there are more who are as I described in my former post as immature, a$$hats, etc....and those have ruined the entire WOTC boards IMO. I would like to avoid these boards becoming a WOTC clone board for Pathfinder.

Got to the link I provided. Find these troublesome posters. Let us have concrete examples of what you mean.

http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=339

That is the link to the CharOp boards of Gleemax for Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 edition.

Can people go through the first few pages and post here what they find objectionable?

I'd like to see what each of you says.

So you're saying that if we had a optimization subforum, it would destroy the message boards?

Bit of a hyperbole, don't you think?

Scott Betts wrote:

TerraNova wrote:

Divisions often bring about lots of drama

I think it's clear from this thread that the drama and division exists now, with no help required from a sub-forum.

Sad to say, but: Just a taste of things to come...

Only because you will make it so.

The enemy you are afraid of meeting already exists; he is you.

Now, let me ask you something. Do your barbarians have high strength scores? Your sorcerers high charisma scores? Guess what, you're optimizing. Shocking, isn't it?

We all optimize, just to different degrees. Having a subforum for people who want to better learn the art and how to practice it isn't a bad thing. It's encouraging a better understanding of the system and how to play it.

My issue with a CO forum is that it polarizes.

Because the massive amount of CO hate just floating around the forums as is isn't polarizing, is it?

I don't want a Charop board on this site because it will draw a lot of undesirable facets of that community. WOTC boards are rife with trolls, a$$hats who just want to argue any point like debate club wannabes, and a good amount of immature people expressing their dominance through fits.

Because none of that stuff has shown up in *this* thread so far, right? I'm sure glad that non of ya'll roleplayers have shown discourtesy, obstinateness, arrogance, and immaturity so far.

Your conduct has been unimpreachable, hasn't it?